Petitioners seeking stay of departmental proceedings pending criminal trial based on same charges. Court held no legal bar to simultaneous proceedings, citing Supreme Court precedents distinguishing disciplinary and criminal purposes.
Petitions dismissed; departmental proceedings not stayed; no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Date of decision: May 02nd , 2016
C.M. Appl. No.15999/2016 in W.P.(C) No.3756/2016 C.M. Appl. No.16001/2016 in W.P.(C) No.3757/2016
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
The applications stand disposed of.
W.P. (C) No.3756/2016 W.P.(C) No.3757/2016
W.P.(C) Nos.3756/2016 & 3757/2016
Page 1 of 9
W.P.(C) Nos.3756/2016 & 3757/2016
Page 2 of 9
“…..What is, however, fairly well settled and was not disputed even before us is that there is no legal bar to the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings and a criminal trial simultaneously. In Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs. Mohd. Yousuf Miyan (1997) 2 SCC 699, this Court declared that the purpose underlying departmental proceedings is distinctly different from the purpose behind prosecution is distinctly different from the purpose behind prosecution of offenders for
W.P.(C) Nos.3756/2016 & 3757/2016
Page 3 of 9
commission of offences by them. While criminal prosecution for an offence is launched for violation of a duty that the offender owes to the society, departmental enquiry is aimed at maintaining discipline and efficiency in service. The difference in the standard of proof and the application of rules of evidence to one and inapplicability to the other was also explained and highlighted only to explain that conceptually the two operate in different sphere and are intended to serve distinctly different purposes. The relatively recent decision of this Court in Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. M.G.Vittal Rao (2012) 1 SCC 442, is a timely reminder of the principles that are applicable in such situations succinctly summed up in the following words: -
“(i) There is no legal bar for both proceedings to go on simultaneously.
(ii) The only valid ground for claiming that the disciplinary proceedings may be stayed would be to ensure that the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced. But even such grounds would be available only in cases involving complex questions of facts and law.
(iii) Such defence ought not to be permitted to unnecessarily delay the departmental proceedings. The interest of the delinquent officer as well as the employer clearly lies in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.
(iv) Departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously to the criminal trial, except where both the proceedings are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common.”
W.P.(C) Nos.3756/2016 & 3757/2016
Page 4 of 9
“(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 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 honor may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, administration may get rid of him at the earliest.”
W.P.(C) Nos.3756/2016 & 3757/2016
Page 5 of 9
“A 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 a grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law….. Under these circumstances, what is required to be seen is whether the departmental enquiry would seriously prejudice the delinquent in his defense at the trial in a criminal case. It is always a question of fact to be considered in each case depending on its own facts and circumstances.”
W.P.(C) Nos.3756/2016 & 3757/2016
Page 6 of 9
that criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings can proceed simultaneously.
"7. ... The purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution are two different and distinct aspects. The 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 questions of fact and law. Offence generally implies infringement of public (sic 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 Evidence Act. Converse is the case of departmental enquiry. The enquiry in a
W.P.(C) Nos.3756/2016 & 3757/2016
Page 7 of 9
departmental proceedings 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 or applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded is a settled legal position. The enquiry in the departmental proceedings relates to the conduct of the delinquent officer and proof in that behalf is not as high as in an offence in criminal charge. It is seen that invariably the departmental enquiry has to be conducted expeditiously so as to effectuate efficiency in public administration and the criminal trial will take its own course. The nature of evidence in criminal trial is entirely different from the departmental proceedings. In the former, prosecution is to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the touchstone of human conduct. The standard of proof in the departmental proceedings is not the same as of the criminal trial. The evidence also is different from the standard point of the Evidence Act. The evidence required in the departmental enquiry is not regulated by the Evidence Act. Under those 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 a question of fact to be considered in each case depending on its own facts and circumstances."
W.P.(C) Nos.3756/2016 & 3757/2016
Page 8 of 9
Court finds that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners if the departmental proceedings and the criminal trial proceedings are allowed to continue simultaneously.
16. The writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
C.M. Appl. No.15998/2016 in W.P.(C) No.3756/2016 C.M. Appl. No.16000/2016 in W.P.(C) No.3757/2016
Both the applications are dismissed as infructuous.
(VED PRAKASH VAISH)
JUDGE
MAY 02 nd , 2016
gm
W.P.(C) Nos.3756/2016 & 3757/2016
Page 9 of 9
2 issues framed by the court
Whether departmental proceedings against government employees should be stayed pending the conclusion of criminal proceedings based on the same charges.
Whether allowing simultaneous departmental and criminal proceedings would cause prejudice to the employees in their criminal defence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/s. Stanzen Toyotetsu India P. Ltd. Vs. Girish V & Ors.Referred¶17
SLP (C) No.30371-30376 of 2012 in M/s Stanzen Toyotetsu India P. Ltd. Vs. Girish V & Ors.
Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs. Mohd. Yousuf MiyanApplied¶20
Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs. Mohd. Yousuf Miyan (1997) 2 SCC 699 · Who else cites this
Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. M.G.Vittal RaoApplied¶23
Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. M.G.Vittal Rao (2012) 1 SCC 442 · Who else cites this
Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.Applied¶30
Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., (1999) 3 SCC 679 · Who else cites this
HPCL v. Sarvesh BerryApplied¶38
HPCL v. Sarvesh Berry, (2005) 10 SCC 471 · Who else cites this
Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India through its secretary and anotherApplied¶40
Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India through its secretary and another, (2015) 7 Supreme Court Cases 291
Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T. Corporation v. Mohd. Yousuf MiyaApplied¶44
Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T. Corporation v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya
Shri Amar Singh
Shri Subhash Chander
The Traffic Manager & Ors.
Ved Prakash Vaish
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
