JHA, CJ. - (1.) THIS special appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated August 4, 2005 dismissing the writ petition of the appellant. The appellant had filed the writ petition seeking direction upon the respondents to drop the departmental proceedings initiated against him during pendency of the criminal case. The facts of the case briefly are as follows:-
(2.) DURING tenure of the appellant as Branch Manager of the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (in short `the Insurance Company') at Kishangarh Branch, a criminal case bearing FIR No. RC/jai/2003/a/0004 under Sections 120-B, 409, 465, 467, 471 and 477-A IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) at Jaipur Branch against the appellant and others on March 7, 2003 and on November 15, 2003 charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and others. The case is presently pending in the Court of Special Judge, CBI Cases, Jaipur at the stage of framing of charges. Meanwhile, on March 15, 2005 a departmental proceeding was initiated against the appellant. On April 1, 2005 the charge-memo along with the statement of imputation of misconduct etc. was issued. The appellant made representation to keep the proceeding in abeyance during pendency of the criminal case. A legal notice was also served. The representation apparently did not find favour and on June 7, 2005 Smt. Jaya Balachandran, CDI, CVC, New Delhi was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Pursuant to letter of the appellant dated June 7, 2005, on July 4, 2005 the respondents appointed Shri Surjeet Singh, CDI, CVC, New Delhi as the Enquiry Officer in place of Smt. Jaya Balachandran. At this stage the appellant filed the writ petition seeking relief as indicated outset. The learned Single Judge noticed the grievance of the appellant to the effect that during pendency of the criminal case departmental proceedings cannot be initiated but disagreeing with the contention, observing that departmental proceedings can be initiated while criminal case is pending, dismissed the writ petition. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has come in appeal to the Division Bench. Shri Praveen Balwada appearing for the appellant submitted that departmental proceeding is based on self same facts as criminal case and, therefore, it would not be proper to permit the respondents to continue with the departmental proceeding till disposal of the criminal case. In support of the contention counsel placed reliance on Union of India & Ors. vs. Naman Singh Shekhawat & Anr. , 2005 (8) RDD 3332. The question as to whether a departmental proceeding can be held simultaneously with the criminal case or after acquittal of the delinquent in the criminal case is not res-integra. In Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. vs. Kushal Bhan, AIR 1960 SC 806, one of the earliest cases on the point, the Supreme Court observed that:- " It is true that very often employers stay enquiries pending the decision of the criminal case of the criminal Trial Courts and that is fair; but we can not say that principles of natural justice require that an employer must wait for the decision at least of the criminal Trial Court before taking action against an employee. " Having observed thus, the Court added a caveat as under:- " We may, however, add that if the case is of a grave nature or involves questions of fact or law, which are not simple, it would be advisable for the employer to await the decision of the Trial Court, so that the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced. " In Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. vs. Workmen, AIR 1965 SC 155, the Supreme Court observed as under:- " There is yet another point which remains to be considered. The Industrial Tribunal appears to have taken the view that since criminal proceedings had been started against Raghavan, the domestic enquiry should have been stayed pending the final disposal of the said criminal proceedings. As this Court has held in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. vs. Kushal Bhan ({1960} 3 SCR 227) it is desirable that if the incident giving rise to a charge framed against a workman in a domestic enquiry is being tried in a criminal court, the employer should stay the domestic enquiry pending the final disposal of the criminal case. " From the above pronouncements of law it is clear that there is no bar to initiating or continuing the departmental proceeding during pendency of the criminal case but the employer is required to take a rational decision as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the particular case, proceeding should be stayed or continued. Understandably, as there cannot be any hard and fast rule limiting the discretion of the employee, the question kept cropping-up in different Courts times without number. It is not necessary to refer to plethora of case law on the subject, suffice it to mention a few of them to indicate the recent trend.
(3.) IN Khusheshwar Dubey vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. , (1988) 4 SCC 319, after survey of the case law of the subject, the Supreme Court observed as under:- " The view expressed in the three cases of this Court seem to support the position that while there could be no legal bar for simultaneous proceedings being taken, yet, there may be cases where it would be appropriate to defer disciplinary proceedings awaiting disposal of the criminal case. IN the latter class of cases it would be open to the delinquent employee to seek such an order of stay or injunction from the court. Whether in the facts and circumstances of a particular case there should or should not be such simultaneity of the proceedings would then received judicial consideration and the court will decide in the given circumstances of a particular case as to whether the disciplinary proceedings should be interdicted, pending criminal trial. As we have already stated that it is neither possible nor advisable to evolve a hard and fast, strait-jacket formula valid for all cases and of general application without regard to the particularities of the individual situation. For the disposal of the present case, we do not think it necessary to say anything more, particularly when we do not intend to lay down any general guideline. " In Nelson Motis vs. Union of India, (1992) 4 SCC 711, the statement of law was more emphatic and it would be useful to quote the relevant observation as under:- " So far the first point is concerned, namely, whether the disciplinary proceedings could have been continued in the fact of the acquittal of the appellant in the criminal case, the plea has no substance whatsoever and does not merit a detailed consideration. The nature and scope of a criminal case are very different from those of a departmental disciplinary proceeding and an order of acquittal, therefore, cannot conclude the departmental proceeding. " In Corporation of the City of Nagpur, Civil Lines, Nagpur vs. Ramchandra, (1984) 2 SCC 714, a question arose as to whether departmental proceedings can be initiated where the delinquent has been acquitted of the charge in the criminal case involving the same set of facts. The Supreme Court laid down certain guide lines and it may be useful to quote the relevant observation as under:- " The other question that remains is if the respondents are acquitted in the criminal case whether or not the departmental inquiry pending against the respondents would have to continue. This is a matter which is to be decided by the department after considering the nature of the findings given by the criminal Court. Normally where the accused is acquitted honourably and completely exonerated of the charges it would not be expedient to continue a departmental inquiry on the very same charges or grounds or evidence, but the fact remains, however, that merely because the accused is acquitted, the power of the authority concerned to continue the departmental inquiry is not taken away nor is its direction (discretion) in any way fettered. However, as quite some time has elapsed since the departmental inquiry had started the authority concerned will take into consideration this factor in coming to the conclusion if it is really worthwhile to continue the departmental inquiry in the event of the acquittal of the respondents. If, however, the authority feels that there is sufficient evidence and good grounds to proceed with the inquiry, it can certainly do so. " ;