Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 988 (JHR)

Basudeo Mahto v. State Of Jharkhand

2003-08-13

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2003
ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. This writ petition has been preferred for issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s), particularly writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to stay the departmental proceeding pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 6th June, 2003 (Annexure-2) till conclusion of the criminal proceeding in which the petitioner is an accused. 2. Further prayer has been made to set aside the second charge-sheet dated 5th July, 2003 (Annexure-4) and the third charge-sheet dated 15th July, 2003 (Annexure-6), as according to petitioner, they are same and similar as that of the first charge-sheet dated 6th June, 2003. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the charges contained in Memo No. 207, dated 6th June, 2003 are similar to the charges contained in Memo No. 237, dated 5th July, 2003 and the charges contained in Memo No. 250/c, dated 15th July, 2003 but such submission cannot be accepted. If all the documents are read together, then it will be evident that the petitioner was merely informed of the allegation vide Memo No. 207, dated 6th June. 2003 and was asked to show cause as to why a departmental proceeding be not initiated against him. The petitioner having not submitted any show cause reply, the departmental proceeding was initiated vide Memo No. 217, dated 24th June, 2003 (Annexure-3), whereby the charge-sheet contained in Memo No. 237, dated 5th July, 2003 (Annexure-4) was forwarded. Thus, it is the same allegation, one issued at the initial stage prior to initiation of departmental proceeding and the other at the time of initiation of the departmental proceeding. 4. So far as the Memo No. 250/c, dated 15th July, 2003 and Memo No. 1240, dated 21st July, 2003 are concerned, it is the "imputation of charges" which has been communicated later, having not been communicated with the charge-sheet. 5. Under the rule, it is not only the charges required to be communicated to a charged employee but also "Imputation of charges" along with the list of evidence/witness. Earlier, only the charges having been communicated, the authorities communicated the "imputation of charges" vide letter No. 1240, dated 21st July, 2003 and thus, it cannot be held to be a third charge-sheet. 6. It is submitted that for the same set of facts and charges, a Vigilance P.S. Ranchi Case No. 14/2001 has been instituted against the petitioner on 18th October, 2001. 6. It is submitted that for the same set of facts and charges, a Vigilance P.S. Ranchi Case No. 14/2001 has been instituted against the petitioner on 18th October, 2001. The charges in the criminal case and the departmental proceeding being same, the respondents should stay the departmental proceeding till the final disposal of the criminal case, but such submission also cannot be accepted. 7. The question whether a departmental proceeding and a criminal proceeding can proceed simultaneously or not fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Anr., reported in AIR 1999 SC 1416 . In the said case, the Supreme Court held as follows : "The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are : (i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. (ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. (iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge-sheet. (iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. (iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. (v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, administration may get rid of him at the earliest." From the charge-sheet of both the departmental proceeding and the criminal proceeding, though it appears that the charges are based on identical/similar set of facts but the charges in the criminal proceeding against the petitioner does not involve any complicated question of law and fact. Therein, the charges have been framed under Section 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 8. Admittedly, the charges in the departmental proceeding and the criminal proceeding are different. While in the criminal proceeding, the charges have been framed under Section 7/13 of the P.C. Act, in the departmental proceeding, the charges of "misconduct" has been levelled. 9. For demand of bribe, the petitioner may not be convicted in the criminal case but in the departmental proceeding for such demand of bribe, he may be punished, it being misconduct. Thus, it cannot be held that the charges in both the criminal and departmental proceeding are same. 10. Counsel for the respondents while relied on Clause 5 of the observation made by Supreme Court, as quoted above, submitted that the criminal case though instituted on 18th October, 2001 but no satisfactory progress having been made, the authorities decided to proceed departmentally against the petitioner. 11. Having heard the counsel for the parties, I find no reason to interfere with the departmental proceeding. 12. The writ petition is dismissed.