Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1384 (RAJ)

MOHAMMED RUSTAM v. J. V. V. N. LTD.

2006-04-27

N.P.GUPTA

body2006
Judgment ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner. The prayer made in the stay application is that the effect and operation of the charge sheet [annexure 2] and further disciplinary proceedings in pursuance thereof to be stayed. The whole basis of this prayer in the writ petition is, that due to delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings the petitioner has been prejudiced, that continuation of inquiry for almost 15 days is nothing but arbitrary and illegal, as no steps were taken by the disciplinary inquiry authority to conclude the inquiry. ( 2 ) THE other ground given is that the charges levelled against the petitioner in the charge sheet are almost the same as alleged in the criminal case, wherein he has been acquitted and thus, there is hardly any justification to continue the departmental inquiry. ( 3 ) IN my view, from the record of the inquiry proceedings as made available for my perusal, it is clear that after receipt of the reply to the charge sheet, in view of the pendency of the criminal case, the further proceedings in the inquiry had been kept in abeyance and after the petitioner has been acquitted vide Annexure 7, they are sought to be revived. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, to substantiate his request cited two judgment of this court and couple of judgments of Honble Supreme Court. The case in Babu Lalgangwal Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1992 rlr was relied to contend that the proceedings were initiated and thereafter 20 years had elapsed no decision has been taken and that he had been acquitted in a criminal case six years ago and that once he had been acquitted in criminal case there could hardly be any justification to continue departmental inquiry. Then the judgment of this Court in Chiranji Lal Sharma Vs. State of rajasthan reported in 1997 [1] WLC [raj. ]page 759 was relied upon for the purpose of contending that on account of long delay in proceedings that the inquiry had been quashed by this Court as deemed to have been abated. ( 5 ) RELIANCE was then placed on a judgment of Honble Supreme court in State of AP Vs. ]page 759 was relied upon for the purpose of contending that on account of long delay in proceedings that the inquiry had been quashed by this Court as deemed to have been abated. ( 5 ) RELIANCE was then placed on a judgment of Honble Supreme court in State of AP Vs. Radhakishan reported in AIR 1998 sc 1833 to contend that the inquiry was quashed therein on account of it remaining pending for 10 years without any explanation as to why inquiry officer did not examine the witnesses and in absence of any contribution in the delay on the part of delinquent officer. Then, the judgement of honble Supreme Court in P. V. Mahadevan Vs. MD Tamil Nadu housing Board reported in [2005] 6 SCC 639 was relied to contend that departmental inquiry should be avoided not only in the interests of the government employee but in public interest and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the government employees. ( 6 ) I have considered the submissions. Suffice it to say that in Radhakishans case itself Honble Supreme Court had said that it is not possible to lay down any predetermined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings and whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated each case has to be examined on the facts and circumstances in that case. ( 7 ) THE essence of the matter is that the Court has to take in to consideration all the relevant factors and to balance and weigh them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly when the delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay. Respecting these guidelines and observations, I have to consider the case in hand i. e. in the facts and circumstances of the case of the present case before proceedings further, I may observe that so far babu Lal Gangwals case is concerned in view of the later judgement of the Honble Supreme Court in Chairman and managing Director, United Commercial Bank and Ors. Vs. P. C. Kakkar reported in [2003] 4 SCC, cannot be hold good inasmuch as in this case it was clearly held in para 15 as under: -. . . Vs. P. C. Kakkar reported in [2003] 4 SCC, cannot be hold good inasmuch as in this case it was clearly held in para 15 as under: -. . . . Acquittal in criminal case is not determinative of the commission of misconduct or otherwise, and it is open to the authorities to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings, notwithstanding acquittal in the criminal case. It per se would not entitle the employee to claim immunity from the proceedings. At the most the factum of acquittal may be a circumstance to be considered while awarding punishment. It would depend upon the facts of each case and even that cannot have universal application. ( 8 ) WITHHOLDING this, the matter was remitted back to the High Court only on the aspect of punishment, treating all other matters to be closed and to have become final. In that case, the employee was suspended in Year 1983 and the proceedings were initiated and he was dismissed from service, however it was also noticed that incumbent has superannuated in the Year 2002 and it was in the Year 2003, to be precised, the matter was remitted back. Then in South bengal State Transport Corpn. Vs. Swapan Kumar Mitra and ors. reported in JT 2006 [2] SC 307, it was held that the order of punishment in absence departmental proceeding can very well be passed even after acquittal of the delinquent employee in a criminal case. This judgment of Honble supreme Court in Nelson Motis Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in JT 1992 [5] SC 511 and Senior Suprintendent of post Offices, Pathamthitta and Ors. Vs. A. Gopalan [jt 1998 [9] SC 332. Thus, the judgment in Babu Lal Gangwals case cannot be said to be any longer good law and the contention based thereunder are not detaining any more. ( 9 ) NOW, coming to the contention of delay, if the matter is considered on the parameters laid down in radhakishans case, in the peculiar circumstances of the present case, where departmental proceedings have been kept in abeyance pending the criminal prosecution, if simply the criminal prosecution prolonged for a bit long time for the one reason or the other, if the departmental proceedings are re-assumed it cannot be said that the proceedings had been prelonged without any explanation or without any reasonable cause so as to require to be quashed. Significantly, the various judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are the judgements on their own facts. ( 10 ) IN that view of the matter, I do not find any sufficient ground to grant stay in terms of the prayer made in the stay application. However, in the circumstances, the departmental inquiry is directed to be concluded most expeditiously. The stay application is, therefore, dismissed. The writ petition has already been admitted on 27. 09. 2005, office to proceed.