Divisional Controller, ... vs Jagannath S/O Krishnarao Gawande
2002 Latest Caselaw 600 Bom

JUDGMENT

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.

1. The respondent is working as a helper in the Divisional Workshop of M.S.R.T.C. at Akola. A departmental enquiry was convened against the respondent on the charge that he had submitted false medical bills to the applicant. The bills were paid by the applicant. According to the applicant, these medical bills were found to be bogus on enquiry. A charge-sheet was issued to the respondent on 26-3-1993. A criminal complaint had also been lodged with the police on 22-2-1993 and an offence was registered under sections 419, 420, 463 and 469 of Indian Penal Code as Crime No. 106 of 1993. The respondent filed a suit being Reg. Civil Suit No. 441 of 1993 before the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge. Jr. Dn., Akola. In the said suit, an interim injunction was prayed for restraining the applicant from holding the departmental enquiry against the respondent until the decision of the criminal case in respect of Crime No. 106 of 1993 registered with the police station, Civil Lines, Akola, or until the decision of the suit whichever was earlier. An interim injunction was granted by the impugned order dated 9-2-1994 passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., Akola and the order of the learned trial Judge has been confirmed in appeal on 15-4-1995 by the District Judge, Akola.

2. The learned trial Judge was of the view that it would be appropriate to stay the departmental proceedings since the criminal trial and the departmental enquiry were based on the same set of facts. The learned trial Judge noted that the respondent had continued to be in service since the order of suspension had been stayed by the Industrial Court.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant has stated before the Court that on 16-8-2001 the learned J.M.F.C. has already rendered his decision in the criminal case and the respondent has been acquitted. Therefore, in any event, at the present point of time, there is no bar upon holding a departmental enquiry. There is merit in the submission. But even apart from this, the learned counsel for the applicant is right, in my view, in submitting that a case for the grant of a stay of the departmental proceeding was clearly not made out. It is a well settled principle of law that a departmental enquiry probing into charges of misconduct against an employee- and a criminal proceeding stand completely on a different footing. In a criminal prosecution, the question which arises is whether the accused who is charged is guilty of a breach of the provisions of the criminal law of the land. In a departmental enquiry, the issue which arises is entirely different and that issue is as to whether the employee is guilty of a breach of service regulations or is guilty of misconduct defined with reference to those regulations. The standard of proof in a departmental enquiry and the standard of proof in a criminal trial are different. In a departmental enquiry the standard of proof that is required is proof on a preponderance of probabilities. In a criminal trial the proof that is necessitated is a proof beyond reasonable doubt. These principles are well settled in view of several leading judgments of the Supreme Court.

4. Having regard to the well settled principle of law, I am of the view that no case was made out for a stay of the departmental proceedings and the orders of both the Courts below suffer from a clear illegality, which would warrant the interference of this Court in the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I am of the view that the impugned order, if allowed to stand, would cause a substantial failure of justice. In any event, as already noted, the criminal proceedings have now come to an end. In that view of the matter, it would be appropriate to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 15-4-1995 passed by the learned District Judge, Akola and the order dated 9-2-1994 passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., Akola. This Civil Revision Application shall stand allowed in aforesaid terms.