Supreme Court of India was dealing with the petition challenging the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in favour of the respondent where the respondent was released from jail in demand of bribe.
Brief Facts:
On the basis of the complaint lodged against the respondent who was employed as a clerk with the appellant(s) relating to demands for bribe by the respondent to clear retirement formalities, the respondent came to be arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation on 31st August, 2015. A case was lodged against the respondent under Section 7 (12) & (13), sub-section 2 read with Section 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant also passed an order of suspension against the respondent on 3rd August, 2015. Appellant served respondent a notice of the departmental enquiry on 20th March, 2017. This prompted the respondent to move a writ petition.
Appellant’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Division Bench of the High Court has erred in not noticing that principally it is not desirable to delay the departmental proceeding on account of pendency of a criminal case. It was also contended that a verdict of acquittal in the trial which may occur in the future would not affect the disciplinary proceedings as these proceedings have purport different from the disciplinary proceedings. The principles applicable to disciplinary proceedings are different is apparently the contention.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the impugned order does not call for any interference. He submitted that the disciplinary proceedings were not conducted in a proper manner. It was submitted that the charges, the witnesses and evidence in the Criminal case and also in the departmental proceedings are the same.
SC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides SC stated that it is undoubtedly true that this Court has taken the view that when the charges are identical and gives rise to complicated issues of the fact and law and evidence is the same, it may not be appropriate to proceed simultaneously in disciplinary proceedings, along with the criminal case. SC stated that rationale behind the principle largely is that the employee who is facing the disciplinary proceeding would necessarily have to take a stand. This in turn would amount to revealing his defense and therefore prejudice the employee in the criminal proceedings.
SC noted that what is most pertinent is the aspect that in the challenge in the writ petition against the holding of the disciplinary proceedings, obtaining of an interim order in the nature of the case was of relevance and importance to the question at hand. The principle involved being that when parallel proceedings are held on the basis of identical charges and the same evidence, the employee should not be allowed to disclose his defence.
SC observed that reference made to Order 41 Rule 33 of the CPC may not have been justified. Order 41 Rule 33 no doubt clothes the appellate court with an extra ordinary power, which however is a rare jurisdiction. It is to reach justice in the special facts of a case. It is not an ordinary rule to be applied across the board in all the appeals.
SC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the SC held that “the principle is interalia no doubt that even if there is no appeal by any of the parties in the proceedings, an order can be passed in his favour in the appeal carried by the other side. Any order which ought to have been passed can be passed. In this case, there is no order against the appellant(s) by the learned Single Judge. We do not think in the facts of this case, that it is a fit case where the High Court could have supported the directions with reference to Order 41 Rule 33. The upshot of the above discussion is that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained”.
Case Title: Eastern Coalfields Limited & Ors. v. Rabindra Kumar Bharti
Bench: K.M. Joseph, J.
Citation: (CA No.2794 of 2022 @ SLP(C) No.12061/2021
Decided on: 7th April 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
