Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 644 (AP)

Anant Purwar v. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited

2024-06-19

G.NARENDAR, HARINATH N.

body2024
JUDGMENT : G. NARENDAR, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant and learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 2. Notice to the Respondent No. 4 is dispensed with, in view of the fact that the Respondent No. 4 is none other than the co-employee and author of the complaint, on the basis of which, departmental proceedings have been initiated. It is also not in dispute that the Respondent No. 4 had also lodged an independent complaint with the jurisdictional police resulting in the registration of the complaint as FIR No. 7 of 2024, dated 02.02.2024 of Steel Plant Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate. 3. Pursuant to the information by the Respondent No. 4, a complaint came to be registered invoking provisions of Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the SCs & the STs (POA) Act. The complaint lodged by the Respondent No. 4 within the jurisdictional police reads as under: “I, Nalli Bhanu was working as General Manager and Head of the Department in Steel Plant Training Department. I belong to Scheduled Caste (SC) [Mala] of Women Officer of Mala Community. In the last year Sri Anantha Purwar, who was the Manager of Steel Plant of Rayabaleri. Anantha Purwar was transferred as Manager of Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam in training department as he got disputes among the in-charge manager and co-employees. From the date of joining here onwards he is not doing the duties to the satisfaction of employer and he used to behave in rash manner. He put me in troubles though I’m HOD. On 01.02.2024 at 12.00 noon he abused me through mobile phone by stating that I appraised him by giving lower marks and also abused me in filthy language without considering me that I am a woman. He abused that I got job on reservation in my caste and called me as “Mala Lanja Kuthura.” There after he switched off his phone and came to my room by pushing the door loud voice and tried to attack on me in the presence of my co-employees who rescued me. Previously also, a similar complaint was given against him. Therefore, kindly investigate in this matter and do necessary action as per law and give necessary protection to me along with my family members.” 4. It is the case of the Respondents Nos. Previously also, a similar complaint was given against him. Therefore, kindly investigate in this matter and do necessary action as per law and give necessary protection to me along with my family members.” 4. It is the case of the Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 that a similar complaint was also came to be lodged with the Management, pursuant to which, the Management proceeded to issue charge sheet, dated 10.02.2024. The statement of Imputations of misconduct is annexed as Annexure-II in the charge sheet and the statement of Imputation reads as under: “1. You had joined RINL, VSP as Management Trainee (Tech) on 01.11.2012. At present, you are working as Manager (Training) in L & DC Dept. 2. A complaint dated 01.02.2024 was received that on 01.02.2024, you called Mr. N. Bhanu, GM (Training) & HOD, over mobile and started arguing and abusing her on your appraisal rating for the FY 2022-23. When she told you that she will start recording your call, you disconnected the phone. Later, in a few minutes, you barged into HOD’s office room and started shouting at her with high pitch. Hearing this, her PA and other sub-ordinate colleagues had rushed into her office, standing there witnessing and trying to pacify you. Hod tried to counsel you about appraisal rating given to you and also informed you about the appeal procedure. Hod even told that your unruly behavior will be recorded. But you did not heed to the request and continued shouting with loud pitch and widened eyes. Your derogatory statements include caste discrimination, derogatory comments on the HoD’s social status and allegations on HoD and her Controlling Officer. 3. Subsequently, you were suspended from duties vide Suspension Order No. 24/L&DC/123159/dated 05.02.2024 [e-Dark/L&DC/2024/74]. 4. The above acts on your part constitutes misconduct, in terms of Clauses 5.12 and 5.20 of the RINL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules.” 5. From the reading of the above, the charge framed by the management and the charge to be investigated by the jurisdictional police are one and the same, and in that view, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that this is a case that would squarely be covered by the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Another, (1993) 3 SCC 679 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 22 and 23 has been pleased to observe and held as under: 22. 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. (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. 23. It was on this basis that criminal case was launched against him. On the same set of facts, constituting the raid and recovery, departmental proceedings were initiated against the appellant as the “recovery” was treated to be a “misconduct.” On the service of the charge sheet, the appellant raised an objection that the departmental proceedings may be stayed as the basis of these proceedings was the raid conducted at his residence on which basis a criminal case had already been launched against him. He requested that the decision of the criminal case may be awaited, but his request was turned down. The request made a second time for that purpose also met the same fate. When the appellant approached the High Court, liberty was given to the respondents to stay the departmental proceedings if they considered it appropriate but they were directed to dispose of the appellant's appeal against the order by which he was placed under suspension. The order of the High Court had no effect on the respondents and they decided to continue with the departmental proceedings which could not be attended by the appellant as he informed the Inquiry Officer that he was ill. His request for adjournment of the departmental proceedings on that ground was not acceded to and the proceedings continued ex-parte against him. He was ultimately found guilty of the charges and was dismissed from service. (Emphasis supplied) 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 would contend that the said position is no more a good law in view of the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India and Others vs. P. Zadenga, (2023) 10 SCC 675 and placed reliance on Para Nos. 31 to 35 which reads as under: “31. As a principle of law, we have already observed that a departmental proceeding pending criminal trial would not warrant an automatic stay unless, of course, a complicated question of law is involved. Also, acquittal in a criminal case ipso facto would not be tantamount to closure or culmination of proceedings in favour of a delinquent employee. 32. Having perused the delinquent employee’s response to the initiation of inquiry proceedings, most significantly, we notice that no plea of MoS was ever taken. No specific plea of postponement of disciplinary proceedings awaiting conclusion of a criminal trial was made. 33. It is seen that the officer neither pleaded nor indicated the prejudice caused to him as a consequence of the initiation of criminal proceedings or simultaneous continuation of both proceedings. 34. Applying all of the above-noted principles to the facts of the case, we find that neither was it the case of the delinquent employee that the trial to which he was subjected to begin within one year of the commission of the offence nor does the record speak to this effect. 34. Applying all of the above-noted principles to the facts of the case, we find that neither was it the case of the delinquent employee that the trial to which he was subjected to begin within one year of the commission of the offence nor does the record speak to this effect. It is in the inquiry report 10, dated 3rd December 2001, that an objection to the disciplinary proceedings being conducted while a criminal case was being tried is registered, but even there, no date stands specified. Annexure P-4 Page 109 of the Paperbook. 35. Further, it is not the case of the delinquent employee that the principles of natural justice were not complied with in the disciplinary proceedings of the bank.” (Emphasis supplied) Learned counsel would contend that the right of the Respondents-Management, from proceeding further with the enquiry cannot be curtailed and that the respondents should not be tied down from discharging their duties in the light of the above law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 7. Having heard the learned counsels, the short and undisputed fact that emerges is that the Respondent No. 4 is complainant and has lodged a complaint both with the management and the jurisdictional police on similar lines i.e. the petitioner has committed acts which are punishable under the provisions of the SCs & STs (PoA) Act. That apart, it is the same the set of facts, which also constitute the complaint before the management. It is not in doubt that the said facts give cause of action both under the penal law and also enables the respondent/management to invoke the service regulation and initiate departmental proceedings. 8. The fact remains that the allegations to be investigated by the jurisdictional police and to be enquired into by a Court of Law and the allegations to be enquired into by the disciplinary authority are one and the same and the incident having occurred within the premises of the factory and more particularly in the chambers of the complainant, the same probabilizes that the same set of witnesses and evidence would be placed before both the investigating authorities/Courts of Law and in the proposed enquiry. It is not in dispute that the investigation would culminate in the framing of a charge sheet and filing of the same and adjudication of the same by a Court of Law. It is not in dispute that the investigation would culminate in the framing of a charge sheet and filing of the same and adjudication of the same by a Court of Law. The said evidences and material would also be similarly placed before an enquiry officer who may also be a lay person. In that view, the law as evolved by the Apex Court, more particularly in cases of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (Supra) and G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat and Others, (2006) 5 SCC 446 clearly sets apart the case where the delinquent employee is proceeded on a set of charges that are similar to the charge in the criminal trial and which charges are to be proved by the same set of witnesses and evidentiary material both before the Court of law and before the enquiry officer. The findings of the Court of Law would necessarily be canvassed before the disciplinary authority/employer in the wake of a favorable verdict by the Law Courts. 9. The reasons for the same are not far to seek. The same set of allegations, witnesses and evidentiary material would be appreciated by a trained Judicial officer on the one hand and the same would be appreciated by an enquiry officer, who is not a legally trained person on the other hand and it is inevitable that appreciation of the evidences & witnesses by the Law Courts has to be placed on a higher pedestal than the similar exercise by a nonjudicial & untrained layman. It is probably in such peculiar circumstances, the Hon’ble Apex Court has deemed it just and necessary that the disciplinary proceedings await the findings of the criminal Court. 10. The law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in M. Paul Anthony case (Supra) and G.M. Tank case (supra) has subsequently been appreciated by a larger bench consisting of three judges of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shashi Bhushan Prasad vs. Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force and Another, (2019) 7 SCC 979 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court after appreciating the factual and legal components of the conundrum has categorically upheld the correctness of law as laid down in M. Paul Anthony case (Supra) and the Hon’ble Apex court in Shashi Bhushan Prasad case (Supra) has been pleased to observe and hold in ‘Para 20’ as under: 20. The judgment in M. Paul Anthony case (supra) on which the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance was a case where a question arose for consideration as to whether the departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case on the basis of same sets of facts and evidence can be continued simultaneously and this Court answered in Para 22 as under: “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. (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, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest.” 11. In the above background, we have appreciated the ruling upon which reliance has been placed by the Respondents. Paras 3, 6, 7 and 8 reads as under: “3. The facts of the instant dispute as they emanate from the record are: 6. Three different FIRs stood registered against him, under which he was arrested but later released on bail. In the above background, we have appreciated the ruling upon which reliance has been placed by the Respondents. Paras 3, 6, 7 and 8 reads as under: “3. The facts of the instant dispute as they emanate from the record are: 6. Three different FIRs stood registered against him, under which he was arrested but later released on bail. In his written show cause to this Memorandum, the Delinquent employee contended that the disciplinary proceedings should be either dropped or closed since criminal cases were pending him, arising from the same set of transactions. 7. The appellant-bank proceeded to appoint an inquiry officer who, in his report, submitted that three out of four charges stood established. The Delinquent Employee, again denying the charges, filed a response to that but was eventually dismissed from the services at the bank, vide the order of dismissal dated 28th March 2003. The departmental appeal filed by him, after due opportunity of hearing, was dismissed on 16th August 2004. 8. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the departmental appeal, the delinquent employee filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12 of 2005 before the Gauhati High Court. The question before the said Court was: whether, in view of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10th April 20023, the disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent employee (respondent) herein ought to have been stayed or not.” The above paras would reveal that facts on hand and the facts involved in the ruling, as recorded by the Hon’ble Apex Court, are at a complete variance. In the instant case, the appellant has approached this Court at the stage of framing of articles of charges. On the contrary, the facts recorded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in P. Zadenga’s case (supra) would reveal that the delinquent employee had participated in the enquiry and thereafter has proceeded to contest the correctness of the enquiry. In those circumstances, the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold in Paras 31 to 35 as recorded in paragraph 6 hereinabove. 12. This Court has no quarrel with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in P. Zadenga’s case (supra). Whereas, as noted by this bench, the facts are at variance with the facts involved in the said case. 12. This Court has no quarrel with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in P. Zadenga’s case (supra). Whereas, as noted by this bench, the facts are at variance with the facts involved in the said case. A close perusal of the above ruling does not also disclose any observations which would derogate from law laid down by the Apex Court in M. Paul Anthony’s Case (supra) and as upheld by the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shashi Bhushan Prasad’s case. 13. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant has made out a case, which warrants interference by this Court. Accordingly, Writ Appeal is allowed in part. The order of the learned single judge is set aside. There shall be stay of the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 till filing of the charge sheet by the jurisdictional police in FIR No. 7 of 2024 of Steel Plant Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, and examination & cross examination of all the witness. In the event, charges and witnesses are different as noted by the larger bench in Shashi Bhushan Prasad’s Case, it shall be open for the Respondent-Employer to proceed with the enquiry strictly in accordance with law. 14. With the above observation, the Writ Appeal stands partly allowed.