Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 234 (MP)

Kunuru Sharath v. Union of India

2025-03-27

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, VINAY SARAF

body2025
ORDER : 1. Petitioner impugns order dated 28.01.2025 whereby interim relief sought for by petitioner has been declined. 2. Petitioner is a Technical Assistant in respondent No.2 organization. On a complaint made by another employee of the same organization, an FIR has been registered against petitioner under Sections 376(2)(n), 345, 506, 294 of IPC on 30.04.2024. On 21.08.2024, on identical set of facts, a charge memorandum was issued to the petitioner and subsequently, an enquiry under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 has been initiated against petitioner and an Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed. Petitioner has filed the subject Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) seeking quashing of the charge memorandum dated 21.08.2024 and all proceedings emanating therefrom on the ground that charges in the charge memorandum are identical to the allegations in the FIR lodged against the petitioner. 3. The Tribunal by its order dated 05.12.2024 declined to grant interim stay and thereafter list the matter on 17.01.2025 for consideration of the prayer for interim relief. It is at this stage that petitioner approached this Court. Thereafter by order dated 28.01.2025, the prayer for interim relief has been declined and consequently, petitioner amended the petition to incorporate a challenge to order dated 28.01.2025. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in case the departmental proceedings are not stayed, petitioner is going to be prejudice inasmuch as imputation of charge is on identical facts as are alleged by the prosecutrix in the complaint made to the police, based on which subject FIR has been registered. He submits that as on date, charge sheet has not even been filed in the FIR and in case the departmental proceedings continue, grave prejudice is likely to be caused to the petitioner, inasmuch as petitioner would be required to disclose his defence when the prosecutrix steps into the witness box in the departmental Proceedings. 5. Learned Senior counsel for respondents submits that there is no bar on the departmental proceedings continuing simultaneously with the criminal proceedings. Learned Senior Counsel relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & another, (1999) 3 SCC 679 . 6. 5. Learned Senior counsel for respondents submits that there is no bar on the departmental proceedings continuing simultaneously with the criminal proceedings. Learned Senior Counsel relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & another, (1999) 3 SCC 679 . 6. The Tribunal by impugned order dated 28.01.2025 has rejected the application holding as under:- "On 05.12.2024, while issuing notices to the respondents, this Tribunal had directed the respondents to file their short reply to the prayer of interim relief, which was to be considered on the next date. However, the applicant immediately rushed to the Hon'ble High Court by filing WP No.39154 of 2024 in which notices have been issued by the Hon'ble High Court on 06.12.2024 and the matter is sub judice before the Hon'ble High Court. There was no hurry for the applicant's counsel to go to the Hon'ble High Court when the date for the interim relief was fixed by this Tribunal for consideration. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any good ground to stay the departmental proceedings at this stage. We, however, direct that the respondents may proceed further with the departmental proceedings but shall not pass the final order without l eave of this Tribunal." 7. The Tribunal had fixed the matter on a short date and the petitioner had immediately rushed to the High Court. The Tribunal has recorded that there was no hurry for the applicant's counsel to go to the High Court, when the date for interim relief was fixed by Tribunal for consideration. It appears that the decision of the Tribunal has been coloured by the fact that petitioner had immediately sought recourse to the High Court against non-grant of an interim protection. 8. Further on merits, the Tribunal has simply rejected the application by saying that it did not find any good ground to stay the departmental proceeding at that stage. 9. Reference may be had to the judgment of M. Paul Anthony (supra) wherein the Supreme Court has held in Para 22 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. 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. 10. In M. Paul Anthony (supra), the Supreme Court has held that the departmental proceeding and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously and there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. The Supreme Court however has placed a caveat, that if the department proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature, which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it is desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. Further, the Supreme Court has held that where the nature of charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved would depend on the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected during investigation or as reflected in the charge sheet. 11. In the instant case, we are informed that investigation is still on and even the charge sheet has till date not been filed. Since, the investigation is under way and charge sheet has not been filed, it is not discernible at this stage as to whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in the case or not. However, there can be no quarrel with the proposition that offence of which petitioner has been charged, is of a grave nature. 12. Reference may also be had to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Stanzen Toyotestsu India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Girish V. & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 636 wherein the Supreme Court has relied upon the judgment in the case of M. Paul Anthony (Supra). The Supreme Court in Stanzen Toyotestsu India Pvt. Ltd. has held as under :- "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. 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. An early conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings has itself been seen by this Court to be in the interest of the employees. 17. The charges leveled against the respondents in the instant case are under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 356, 427, 504, 506, 114 read with Section 149 I.P.C. These are no ordinary offences being punishable with imprisonment which may extend upto 3 years besides fine. At the same time seriousness of the charge alone is not the test. What is also required to be demonstrated by the respondents is that the case involves complicated questions of law and fact. That requirement does not appear to be satisfied in an adequate measure to call for an unconditional and complete stay of the disciplinary proceedings pending conclusion of the trial. The incident as reported in the first information report or as projected by the respondents in the suits filed by them does not suggest any complication or complexity either on facts or law. 18. That apart the respondents have already disclosed the defense in the explanation submitted by them before the commencement of the departmental enquiry in which one witness has been examined by each of the Enquiry Officers. The charge sheet, it is evident from the record, was filed on 20th August, 2011. The charges were framed on 20th December, 2011. The Trial Court has ever since then examined only three witnesses so far out of a total of 23 witnesses cited in the charge- sheet. Going by the pace at which the Trial Court is examining the witnesses it would take another five years before the trial may be concluded. The High Court has in the judgment under appeal given five months to the Trial Court to conclude the trial. More than fifteen months has rolled by ever since that order, without the trial going anywhere near completion. Disciplinary proceedings cannot remain stayed for an indefinitely long period. Such inordinate delay is neither in the interest of the appellant-company nor the respondents who are under suspension and surviving on subsistence allowance. The number of accused implicated in the case is also very large. We are not suggesting that the incident must be taken to be false only because such a large number could not participate in the incident. Such inordinate delay is neither in the interest of the appellant-company nor the respondents who are under suspension and surviving on subsistence allowance. The number of accused implicated in the case is also very large. We are not suggesting that the incident must be taken to be false only because such a large number could not participate in the incident. But there is a general tendency to spread the net wider and even implicate those who were not concerned with the commission of the offences or who even though present committed no overt act to show that they shared the common object of the assembly or be responsible for the riotous behaviour of other accused persons. Interest of such accused as may be innocent also cannot be ignored nor can they be made to suffer indefinitely just because some others have committed an offence or offences. 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." 13. The Supreme Court in Stanzen Toyotestsu India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has once again reiterated that there is no legal bar to holding of the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal trial simultaneously and has held that the stay of disciplinary proceedings may be an advisable course in cases where the criminal case against the employee is grave and continuance of the disciplinary proceedings is likely to prejudice their defence before the criminal Court. 14. In the instant case, the entire basis of the memorandum of charge issued to the petitioner in the departmental proceedings is the allegation of the prosecutrix which is identical to the allegation recorded in the FIR. Clearly, in case the departmental proceeding continue, one of the witnesses that the department would have to examine, would be the prosecutrix herself and if petitioner is required to cross-examine the prosecutrix in the Departmental proceedings, it would disclose the defence of the petitioner to the criminal prosecution, which may prejudice the petitioner during the criminal trial. 15. The Supreme Court in the case of Stanzen Toyotestsu India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) noticing that there was a stay of disciplinary proceedings and trial proceedings were taking time, had directed the trial Court to expedite the proceedings and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible within a period of one year from date of that order. 16. Subject FIR in the instant case has been registered on 30.04.2024 and nearly one year is lapsed without the investigation being completed and charge sheet being filed. 17. In view of the above, we direct the concerned Police Commissioner, Bhopal to monitor the investigation of FIR No.264/2021, Police Station - Chola Mandir, District Bhopal. 16. Subject FIR in the instant case has been registered on 30.04.2024 and nearly one year is lapsed without the investigation being completed and charge sheet being filed. 17. In view of the above, we direct the concerned Police Commissioner, Bhopal to monitor the investigation of FIR No.264/2021, Police Station - Chola Mandir, District Bhopal. Further, keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that the disciplinary proceeding shall be deferred for a period of one year from today or till the statement of the prosecutrix is recorded before the concerned criminal Court and her cross-examination is concluded, whichever is earlier. 18. We are informed that petitioner has also filed a petition before this Court, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the subject FIR being MCRC No.44933/2024. Accordingly, the direction to monitor the investigation by the Police Commissioner would be subject to any orders that may be passed in the subject MCRC. 19. This petition is disposed of in the above terms. 20. It is clarified that this Court has neither considered nor commented on the merits of the Original Application pending before the Central Administrative Tribunal. 21. All the rights and contentions of the parties thereto are reserved.