- (1.) PETITIONER is Personal Assistant under the respondent authority. In 2004 a criminal case was instituted against the petitioner under Prevention of Corruption Act being R.C. case No. 11 -A/2004 on the charges of receiving illegal gratification. Petitioner was then put under suspension and a departmental proceeding has been initiated and the charge -sheet of the departmental proceeding has been served upon him. On the first sitting of the departmental proceeding on 14.9.2004 petitioner requested for the assistance of co -worker which was accepted. Petitioner then made representation for staying the departmental proceeding against him on the ground of pendency of the criminal case on the same set of charges. The said representation was rejected by the respondents by passing the impugned order. Petitioner has challenged the said order whereby the respondent -authorities refused to stay the departmental proceeding till conclusion of criminal case.
(2.) MR . A.K. Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed the impugned order as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned counsel relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Ranjit Kumar Dey V/s. BCCL, 2001 (2) JCR 3 (Jhr) : (2001) 1 JLJR 246 and also decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Captn. M. Paul Anthony V/s. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & another, (1999) 3 SCC 679. Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand submitted that there is no bar in proceeding with the departmental inquiry merely because pendency of the criminal case. Learned counsel in this regard relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others. V/s. T. Srinivas, (2004) 7 SCC -442.
(3.) IN the case of Captn. M. Paul Anthony, V/s. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. (supra) their Lordship of the Supreme Court after considering the earlier decision came to the following conclusion: "The conclusions which are deducible form 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, 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." ;