Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1949 (RAJ)

Mahaveer Prasad Jatrana v. Union of India

2019-07-12

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

body2019
ORDER : Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. 1. Petitioner by way of this writ petition prays that the proceedings which has been undertaken in the departmental enquiry and the charge-sheet dated 2.1.2019 be quashed and set aside or in the alternative the proceedings be stayed during the pendency of the criminal case instituted against him in FIR No. 33/2019 dated 08.02.2019. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations levelled in the departmental enquiry are same as alleged against him in FIR registered. Thus, he submits that where the facts in the criminal case are similar to the departmental enquiry, the department ought to restrain themselves from proceeding further therein. Learned Counsel has relied on law laid down by the Apex Court in (2014) 3 SCC 636 - Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited Vs. Girish V. and Ors. to submit that the Apex Court has also prima facie taken a view that the proceedings in departmental enquiry should be stayed and the criminal case should be decided first and at the earliest. 3. I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioner. 4. The Apex Court in Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited (supra) was examining the case where the High Court had granted a stay to the departmental enquiry proceedings and it would be thus appropriate to quote concerned paras:- "8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length. The only question that falls for determination in the above backdrop is whether the Courts below were justified in staying the on-going disciplinary proceedings pending conclusion of the trial in the criminal case registered and filed against the respondents. The answer to that question would primarily depend upon whether there is any legal bar to the continuance of the disciplinary proceedings against the employees based on an incident which is also the subject matter of criminal case against such employees. It would also depend upon the nature of the charges in the criminal case filed against the employees and whether the case involves complicated questions of law and fact. The possibility of prejudice to the employees accused in the criminal case on account of the parallel disciplinary enquiry going ahead is another dimension which will have to be addressed while permitting or staying such disciplinary enquiry proceedings. The possibility of prejudice to the employees accused in the criminal case on account of the parallel disciplinary enquiry going ahead is another dimension which will have to be addressed while permitting or staying such disciplinary enquiry proceedings. The law on the subject is fairly well-settled for similar issues and has often engaged the attention of this Court in varied fact situations. Although the pronouncements of this Court have stopped short of prescribing any strait-jacket formula for application to all cases the decisions of this Court have identified the broad approach to be adopted in such matters leaving it for the Courts concerned to take an appropriate view in the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case that comes up before them. Suffice it to say that there is no short cut solution to the problem. What is, however, fairly well settled and was not disputed even before us is that there is no legal bar to the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings and a criminal trial simultaneously. 9. .................... 10. ................... 11. ................... 12. ................... 13. It is unnecessary to multiply decisions on the subject for the legal position as emerging from the above pronouncements and the earlier pronouncements of this Court in a large number of similar cases is well settled that disciplinary proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously in the absence of any legal bar to such simultaneity. It is also evident that while seriousness of the charge leveled against the employees is a consideration, the same is not by itself sufficient unless the case also involves complicated questions of law and fact. Even when the charge is found to be serious and complicated questions of fact and law that arise for consideration, the Court will have to keep in mind the fact that departmental proceedings cannot be suspended indefinitely or delayed unduly. 14. ................... 15. ................... 16. Suffice it to say that while there is no legal bar to the holding of the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal trial simultaneously, stay of disciplinary proceedings may be an advisable course in cases where the criminal charge against the employee is grave and continuance of the disciplinary proceedings is likely to prejudice their defense before the criminal Court. Gravity of the charge is, however, not by itself enough to determine the question unless the charge involves complicated question of law and fact. Gravity of the charge is, however, not by itself enough to determine the question unless the charge involves complicated question of law and fact. The Court examining the question must also keep in mind that criminal trials get prolonged indefinitely especially where the number of accused arraigned for trial is large as is the case at hand and so are the number of witnesses cited by the prosecution. The Court, therefore, has 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 on-going disciplinary proceedings on the other. An early conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings has itself been seen by this Court to be in the interest of the employees. 17. ................... 18. ................... The Apex Court examining the case on facts and passed the following order:- 19. In the circumstances and taking into consideration all aspects mentioned above as also keeping in view the fact that all the three Courts below have exercised their discretion in favour of staying the on-going disciplinary proceedings, we do not consider it fit to vacate the said order straightaway. Interests of justice would, in our opinion, be sufficiently served if we direct the Court dealing with the criminal charges against the respondents to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible but in any case within a period of one year from the date of this order. We hope and trust that the Trial Court will take effective steps to ensure that the witnesses are served, appear and are examined. The Court may for that purpose adjourn the case for no more than a fortnight every time an adjournment is necessary. We also expect the accused in the criminal case to co-operate with the trial Court for an early completion of the proceedings. We say so because experience has shown that trials often linger on for a long time on account of non-availability of the defense lawyers to cross-examine the witnesses or on account of adjournments sought by them on the flimsiest of the grounds. All that needs to be avoided. We say so because experience has shown that trials often linger on for a long time on account of non-availability of the defense lawyers to cross-examine the witnesses or on account of adjournments sought by them on the flimsiest of the grounds. All that needs to be avoided. In case, however, the trial is not completed within the period of one year from the date of this order, despite the steps which the Trial Court has been directed to take the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondents shall be resumed and concluded by the Inquiry Officer concerned. The impugned orders shall in that case stand vacated upon expiry of the period of one year from the date of the order." 5. Thus, from the aforesaid judgment (cited supra), it is apparent that the Apex Court principally agree that the similar proceedings in criminal trial can continue simultaneously and the staying of the disciplinary proceedings is advisable course where the criminal charge is of a very grave nature and involves complicated questions of law and facts but at the same time, the Court has to draw a balance between need for a fair trial and getting demand for expeditious conclusion of ongoing disciplinary proceedings. 6. In the present case, this Court finds that the FIR registered against the petitioner was on 8.2.2019 and no further proceedings in the criminal case have undergone till date. The Court has not taken cognizance in the criminal case while departmental enquiry has proceeded on the basis of a charge-sheet issued on 02.1.2019 and this Court also finds that the charges levelled against the petitioner is not only with regard to the criminal action of the petitioner but also with regard to dereliction of duty. 7. In view thereof, this Court finds that in the present case, no interference is warranted with regard to the continuance of the departmental enquiry. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.