V.K. Shukla, J. - (1.) PETITIONER 's contention is that for the same set of charges and for the same set of evidence, criminal trial and departmental proceedings are ongoing, and in such a situation, the petitioner has made request that till criminal trial is pending, departmental proceedings may be kept in abeyance.
(2.) IN the present case FIR was lodged on 01.06.2009 under Section 7/13(1)(D) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption, 1988 against the petitioner. In the said case charge sheet has been submitted on 29.07.2009 and criminal trial is going on. The petitioner is member of disciplined force as Sub -Inspector. Apart from the criminal trial, departmental proceeding has also been initiated against the petitioner under Rule 14 (1) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. At this juncture, petitioner has rushed to this Court with the prayer mentioned above. Apex Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Coal Mines Ltd. : AIR 1999 SC 1416 after taking into account various earlier judgments has held that departmental proceedings and proceedings in criminal case can proceed simultaneously, as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. It has been further held that if the departmental proceedings and criminal case are based on similar set of facts and charges in criminal case against delinquent employees is of grave nature which involves complicated questions of fact and law, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till conclusion of criminal case. Whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved or not will depend upon the nature of the offence, and the case lodged against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected during the investigation or as reflected in the charge sheet, and these facts are not to be considered in isolation but due regard has to be given to the fact that departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. Thus, if complicated questions of fact and law are involved, and departmental proceedings and criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts, only then it is desirable to stay the departmental proceedings, but the said facts are not to be considered in isolation. Paragraph 22 of the judgment being relevant is being quoted below: 22. The conclusions which are deducible from the various decisions of this Court referred to above are: (i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in 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 charge in criminal case against delinquent employees 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 criminal case. (iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case will depend upon the nature of the offence, the nature of case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during the 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 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 pendency of 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.
(3.) THE judgment in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Coal Mines Ltd. : 1999 ( 3) S.C.C. 679 (Supra) has been followed in the case of State Bank of India and others Versus R.B. Sharma : 2004 (7) S.C.C. 27. Relevant paragraphs 7,8 and 11 are being quoted below: 7. It is a fairly well stetted position in law that on basic principles proceedings in criminal case and departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously, except where departmental proceedings and criminal case are based on the same set of fact and the evidence in both the proceedings is common. 8. The purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution are two different and distinct aspects. Criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of a duty the offender owes to the society, or for breach of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. So crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. It would, therefore, be expedient that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible. It is not, therefore, desirable to lay down any guidelines as inflexible rules in which the departmental proceedings may or may not be stayed pending trial in criminal case against the delinquent officer. Each case requires to be considered in the backdrop of its own facts and circumstances. There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental enquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the charge in the criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated question of fact and law. Offense generally implies infringement of public duty, as distinguished from mere private rights punishable under criminal law. When trial for criminal offence is conducted it should be in accordance with proof of the offence as per the evidence defined under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short " the Evidence Act"). Converse is the case of departmental enquiry. The inquiry in a departmental proceeding relates to conduct or breach of duty of the delinquent officer, to punish him for his misconduct defined under the relevant statutory rules or law. That the strict standard of proof or applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded is a settled legal position. Under these circumstances, what is required to be seen is whether the departmental enquiry would seriously prejudice the delinquent in his defence at the trial in a criminal case. It is always question of fact to be considered in each case depending on its own facts and circumstances. 11. There can be no straitjacket formula as to in which case the departmental proceedings are to be stayed. There may be cases where the trial of the case gets prolonged by the dilatory method adopted by the delinquent official. He cannot be permitted to, on one hand, prolong criminal case and at the same time contend that the departmental proceedings should be stayed on the ground that the criminal case is pending.;