Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
L Ananda Rao vs Union Of India on 2 May, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.11398 of 2023
ORDER:- (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)
Heard Sri N.Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri T.Ashok Srivastav,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of Deputy Solicitor General,
representing the 1st respondent-Union of India and Sri P.Ram
Bhoopal Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3.
2. The petitioner is a Central Government employee working as
Enforcement Officer in the District Office of Eluru of the respondents
organization. A case was registered by the Central Bureau of
Investigation (C.B.I.), Visakhapatnam against him under Sections 7
and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 on the ground that he was trapped red-handedly while he was
accepting a bribe that was demanded by him to do an official favour
to the complainant. After completion of investigation, eventually,
charge sheet was filed by the C.B.I. in the trial Court.
Simultaneously, a departmental enquiry was ordered against him for
the act of misconduct committed by him in demanding and accepting
the bribe to do an official favour to the complainant therein. The
trial of the said criminal case is now pending before the C.B.I. Court,
Visakhapatnam. The trial in the said case commenced and
summons was issued to PW-1. Similarly, the enquiry was also
commenced in the said departmental proceedings.
3. At that stage, the petitioner has approached the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench and filed
O.A.No.20/0507/2022 to order to stop the enquiry till the trial in the
said criminal case in C.C.No.16 of 2018 on the file of the Special
Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Visakhapatnam, is concluded.
4. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, dismissed the said O.A.
stating that the trial of the said criminal case and departmental
proceedings are two distinct and separate proceedings and the
standard of proof required to prove the guilt in a criminal case is
different from the standard of proof required to hold a person guilty
of the misconduct, if at all committed by him, under the service
rules.
5. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been filed by
the petitioner, challenging the impugned order of the Tribunal.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that if both
the trial of the criminal case and enquiry in the departmental
proceedings are conducted simultaneously and the petitioner is
allowed to disclose his defence or his case in the departmental
enquiry, that it would affect his defence in the criminal case and any
amount of prejudice would be caused to him in the criminal case, as
his defence would be known to the witnesses and the prosecution in
the said criminal case. Therefore, he would pray to order to stay the
enquiry till the trial in the criminal case is concluded. In support of
his contention, he relied on the Judgment rendered in the case of
Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport
Corporation v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya, etc.1, wherein certain
conclusions which were drawn from various decisions are discussed
and one of such conclusion is as follows:
"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."
7. The above proposition of law squarely applies to the present
facts of the case. In the instant case also, the departmental
proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar
set of facts which are grave in nature and certain complicated
questions of fact are involved. Therefore, in the said facts and
circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the
AIR 1997 SC 2232
departmental enquiry is to be stayed, till the trial in the criminal case
is concluded.
8. It is already noticed supra that the trial in the criminal case
already commenced as summons was issued to PW-1. So, the trial
would be completed within a short period of time. Therefore, the
petitioner is entitled for the relief claimed in the writ petition to stay
the departmental enquiry, till the trial of the criminal case is
concluded.
9. The Tribunal did not take note of the said legal proposition and
dismissed the said O.A.
10. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the
impugned order of the Tribunal. The departmental proceedings in
the enquiry that was ordered against the petitioner on the similar set
of facts is ordered to be stayed, till the trial of the criminal case is
concluded in C.C.No.16 of 2018 which is transferred and
renumbered as C.C.No.53 of 2022 on the file of the Special Judge for
C.B.I. Cases, Vijayawada. The Special Judge, C.B.I. Court,
Vijayawada is directed to conclude the trial of the case expeditiously
within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If
the trial is not concluded within six months in the said criminal
case, then the stay of departmental enquiry stands vacated and the
respondents are at liberty to proceed with the enquiry in the said
departmental enquiry. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Writ Petition,
shall stand closed.
______________________________________________
JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
__________________________________
JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
Date: 02.05.2023
ARR
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.11398 of 2023
Date: 02-05-2023
ARR
