Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Appellants calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge and directed that deartmental proceedings were not to be continued until conclusion of criminal charge.
(3.) Background facts in a nutshell are as under : Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the employer) is a Government of India enterprise. Officials of the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short the CBI) raided the house of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the employee) on 13-3-1998 and found that he was in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income and consequently a case was registered on 5-5-1998. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed. In the meantime departmental proceedings were initiated against the respondent and charge-sheet was issued. The employee filed a writ petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court taking the stand that departmental proceedings should be stayed till completion of the criminal case. It was specifically stated that once sanction has been granted to launch criminal prosecution nothing further warrants initiation and continuance of departmental proceedings as the issues involved in both the departmental inquiry and the criminal case are identical. The appellants filed counter-affidavit stating that raid was conducted in the year 1988 and after completion of investigation, CBI requested the employer-appellant No.1 to sanction prosecution on 21-12-2000 and on 19-6-2001 sanction has been accorded to prosecute the employee for the criminal charges. Though CBI had filed the charge-sheet there was no noticeable progress for four years. Employer initiated the disciplinary proceedings on the ground that continuation of the employee in service of the employer-Corporation would not be in the public interest. Learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that there is no legal bar on departmental proceedings and criminal case continuing simultaneously even though they are based on identical or similar set of facts. Reference was made to a decision of this Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Anr. (1999) 3 SCC 679. Matter was carried in appeal by the employee before the Division Bench of the High Court in writ appeal and by the impugned judgment the High Court held that there were 3 charges indicated in the charge-sheet. The first related to possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income and the other two related to misconduct in (a) not filing correct property returns, and/or (b) not filing return at all for some years as required under Rule 13(1)(c) of the Hindustan Petroleum Management Employees Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1976 (in short the Rules). The third charge related to failure of the respondent-employee to file property returns for the years 1991-92, 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98. The High Court stated that though the charges 2 and 3 related to non-disclosure or non-submission of property returns they are relatable to the first charge relating to possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income. It would not be safe to permit the appellants to continue the departmental proceedings till completion of criminal case. However, an opportunity was given to take steps for early disposal.;