Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 29 (MP)

Bhag Singh Tomar v. State of M. P.

2015-01-07

A.M.KHANWILKAR, C.V.SIRPURKAR

body2015
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This petition takes exception to the decision of the Enquiry Officer dated 2nd March, 2012. By that order, the Enquiry Officer decided to segregate the charges and proceed with the inquiry only in respect of charges 1 to 4 and 6 & 7. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner will be seriously prejudiced because of that approach. In that, the petitioner is already facing criminal trial for charge of misappropriation. The said criminal case refers to the instances from year 1995 onwards till the filing of the complaint, and for that reason, if the petitioner is forced to participate in the enquiry, may have to expose his defence in connection with those matters while answering the charges at serial nos.1 to 4 and 6 and 7 in the disciplinary enquiry. To obviate that situation and to do complete justice to the petitioner, it would be appropriate to stay the entire enquiry and not limited to charge no.5 as has been done by the Enquiry Officer by the impugned order. To buttress this submission, reliance is placed on paragraph 16 of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited vs. Girish V. and others : (2014) 3 SCC 636 . 4. On perusal of the impugned order passed by the Enquiry Officer and the other related documents including the charges as framed against the petitioner in the departmental enquiry, we find that the Enquiry Officer has elaborately dealt with all aspects of the matter and has pointed out the distinction between the respective charges. It is not as if charge no.5 on the one hand and charges no.1 to 4 and 6 and 7 on the other are inextricably linked with charge no.5. The charge no.5 is on the contrary an independent allegation of misappropriation amounting to serious misconduct. Whereas, the charges Nos: 1 to 4 and 6 and 7 are essentially allegations amounting to neglect and dereliction in discharge of duty and also noncompliance of Rules. Suffice it to observe that even though charges 1 to 4 and 6 and 7 may be referring to some of the fact which may appear to be common for considering charge no.5, as framed, but the said charges are materially different and specific to the facts referred to therein. Suffice it to observe that even though charges 1 to 4 and 6 and 7 may be referring to some of the fact which may appear to be common for considering charge no.5, as framed, but the said charges are materially different and specific to the facts referred to therein. In our opinion, therefore, no fault can be found with the view taken by the Enquiry Officer that in the fact situation of the present case, charge no.5 ought to proceed independently as it is not linked and interrelated with any other charges framed against the petitioner and also because the said charge may be overlapping with the allegations in the criminal prosecution pending against the petitioner for offence under Section409 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Reverting to the decision of the Supreme Court pressed into service, we fail to understand as to how paragraph 16 thereof will be of any avail to the petitioner. The Apex Court has observed that the Court is expected to draw a balance between the need for a fair trial to the accused on the one hand and the competing demand for an expeditious conclusion of the ongoing disciplinary proceedings on the other. The continuation of the disciplinary proceedings as observed by the Enquiry Officer with regard to charges 1 to 4 and 6 and 7, in no way, would prejudice the petitioner in his defence either before the Criminal Court or if he were to be proceeded with charge no.5 in the disciplinary enquiry at a later point of time. As has been noted by the Enquiry Officer the allegations constituting charges 1 to 4 and 6 and 7 can be proceeded on its own and are not linked to charge no.5 as framed against the petitioner. 6. The respondents have rightly invited our attention to the observation of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M.P. Sharma vs. District and Sessions Judge and others : 2003(2) M.P.L.J. 279, in particular paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said decision which involved more or less similar fact situation and the Court accepted the approach of the Enquiry Officer to proceed in the matter in spite of pendency of the criminal case against the delinquent officer. 7. 7. Further, in paragraph 9, of the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above, reference is made to another decision in the case of A.P. SRTC v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya : (1997) 2 SCC 699 , which restates the legal position that the purpose underlying departmental proceedings is distinctly different from the purpose behind prosecution of offenders for commission of offences by them. The departmental enquiry is aimed at maintaining discipline and efficiency in services. The difference in the standard of proof in departmental enquiry is markedly different than the one required in criminal prosecution. Conceptually, the two proceedings are independent and as observed by the Enquiry Officer, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if the enquiry against the petitioner was to proceed in respect of stated charges, absent charge no.5. 8. Hence, this petition fails and is dismissed.