Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 844 (DEL)

Sunita Devi v. Government of NCT

2008-09-03

J.R.MIDHA, MADAN B.LOKUR

body2008
Judgment MADAN B. LOKUR, J. (ORAL) 1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 7th August, 2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in OA No.1614/2008. 2. The Petitioner had obtained employment on the basis of a certificate issued by the Naib Tehsildar certifying that she belonged to Dhanaka community, which is a Scheduled Tribe community in Rajasthan. Subsequently, on verification it was found that the Petitioner had obtained a false certificate and the matter was referred to the Central Bureau of Investigation. It appears that an FIR has been lodged by the Central Bureau of Investigation and a case is pending against the Petitioner in this regard before the Metropolitan Magistrate in the Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. 3. A departmental chargesheet was issued to the Petitioner on 6th February, 2006 alleging that she had obtained a fake or false certificate for getting the benefit of reservation. It was alleged that this amounts to gross misconduct, lack of integrity and an act unbecoming of a Government servant. 4. The Petitioner preferred an Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 contending that the departmental proceedings should be stayed until disposal of the case pending in the Patiala House Courts. The Tribunal by the order under challenge rejected the request of the Petitioner. 5. Reference has been made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another, 1999 (3) SCC 679 wherein the conclusions arrived at by the Supreme Court had been mentioned. These are as follows: - (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 desirably to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. (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 desirably 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. 6. In so far as the present case is concerned, there is no doubt that the issue involved does not raise any complicated question of law or any complicated question of fact. All that the Petitioner is required to do is to show that the certificate obtained is not a fabricated document and that she actually belongs to a Scheduled Tribe. The Tribunal has examined the matter and has come to the conclusion that the case of the Petitioner does not fall under any of the exceptions mentioned by the Supreme Court and, therefore, there is no warrant for staying the departmental proceedings. 7. We cannot disagree with the view expressed by the Tribunal. Normally, departmental proceedings and a criminal case can proceed simultaneously but it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings if complicated questions of law or fact arise and the charge in the criminal case is of a grave nature. This will, of course, depend on the nature of the offence and the nature of the case lodged against the employee on the basis of the evidence and the material collected. 8. None of these exceptions applies to the case of the Petitioner. We see no reason to interfere with the view expressed by the Tribunal. The writ petition is dismissed. 9. All applications are disposed of.