M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has prayed for quashing the letter being letter No. CMPDI/Vigilance/HQ -2000/568 dated 2.8.2000 whereby respondent No. 3. Chief General Manager (Vigilance) Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Ltd. Communicated the decision of the Chairman for re -starting the departmental inquiry against the petitioner.
(2.) THE fact of the case lies in narrow compass. The petitioner while posted as Executive Engineer in Civil. Town Engineering Department CMPDI (HQ) Ranchi, on 12.11.1998 was involved in a case being R.C. No. 16(A) of 1998 and taken into custody for taking gratification of Rs. 25000/ - in his office Chamber of CMPDI. The petitioner was arrested on the same date and a criminal case was instituted against him. The petitioner was put under suspension and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. On 6.1.1998 the petitioner was released on bail. On 19.4.1999 charge -sheet was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner replied to the charge -sheet. The enquiry officer was appointed, who proceeded with the inquiry. However, in the meantime, on an application filed by the petitioner the departmental proceeding was ordered to be kept in abeyance during the pendency of the criminal case. The Chairman took a decision to keep the departmental inquiry in abeyance till further order. The decision of the Chairman was communicated to the petitioner vide General Managers (Vigilance) letter dated 13.12.1999. It appears that the criminal case was not concluded for two years. The Chairman then took a fresh decision to continue the departmental inquiry which is under challenge in this writ application. Mr. A.K. Sahani learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the departmental proceeding was stayed by the Chairman in view of the pendency of the criminal case then the subsequent order passed by him for restarting the departmental inquiry is illegal, arbitrary and wholly without Jurisdiction.
(3.) IT has not been disputed that both the criminal case and the departmental proceeding were initiated on the basis of same and identical charges. It is well -settled that there is no bar in proceeding with the departmental enquiry and the criminal case simultaneously. As a matter of fact, all the relevant factors relating to the charges and the seriousness of the charges shall have to be taken into consideration. Normally departmental enquiry is stayed till the disposal of the criminal case when both the proceeding are started on the same charges but the departmental inquiry can not be stayed only because of the pendency of the criminal case against the delinquent. This question has no longer been res integra. The Supreme Court in the Case of Capt. M. Paulanthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Anr., (1999) Vol. 3 SC 679 has formulated certain guidelines which are as follows : 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 tact 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." 2001 (2) JCR 3 (Jhr), held that if the criminal case does not proceed and disposal being unduly delayed then departmental proceeding can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude it at an early date. Having regard to the fact that the criminal case has not yet begun although more than two years have passed and also regard being had to the fact that charges levelled against the petitioner is serious in nature. I am of the view that the decision of the Chairman to resume and restart the departmental proceeding does not suffer from any illegality and the same is not without Jurisdiction. 6. For the aforesaid reason the impugned order needs no interference. This writ application, therefore is dismissed.;