Bombay High Court
Khema Sonaji Dagale vs Maharashtra State Road Transport ... on 13 July, 2017
Bench: R.M. Borde
1 WP10934.2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO. 10934 OF 2015
Khema Sonaji Dagale,
Age : 47 years, Occu. Service,
R/o. Rajur, Taluka Akole,
District Ahmednagar Petitioner...
Versus
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation,
Sarjepura, Kotla, Ahmednagar Division,
Ahmednagar, through its Divisional Controller Respondent...
..........
Mr Parag V. Barde, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr B. S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the respondent
.............
CORAM : R. M. BORDE &
A. M. DHAVALE, JJ.
DATE : 13TH JULY, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R. M. Borde, J.) :-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
the consent of the parties and taken up for final disposal at admission
stage.
2 WP10934.2015
2. The petitioner is praying for issuance of directions to
respondent to stay the departmental inquiry proceedings initiated
against the petitioner until the conclusion of the criminal case
pending against him in respect of the same charge. The petitioner is
charged for committing misappropriation of an amount of Rs. 6460/-
and a charge-sheet has been issued to him by the Department on
02.06.2015. In respect of the identical charge, a First Information
Report bearing Crime No. I-12/2015 has been lodged against the
petitioner on 24.03.2015. It is informed that the police have
conducted an investigation and the charge-sheet has also been
presented to the Court. The criminal case being RCC No. 56 of 2016
is pending against the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Akole, District Ahmednagar (hereinafter referred to as "JMFC,
Akole").
3. The counsel appearing for the petitioner informs that
though the charge-sheet has been presented in the year 2016, no
charge has been framed against the accused as yet. There is no dual
opinion as regards the fact that the allegations levelled in the
criminal case and the charge framed against the petitioner during the
departmental proceedings initiated against him are based on the
identical allegation i.e. misappropriation of sum of Rs. 6460/-. The
3 WP10934.2015
petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited Versus
Girish V. And Others reported in (2014) 3 SCC 636 and contends
that it would be desirable to direct stay of the departmental
proceedings initiated against him until conclusion of the criminal
prosecution. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold
Mines Ltd. reported in 1999 (3) SCC 679 and others matters. In the
matter of Stanzen Toyotetsu India (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has observed in para 19 of the judgment as follows:
19. In the circumstances and taking into
consideration all aspects mentioned above as also
keeping in view the fact that all the three Courts below
have exercised their discretion in favour of staying the
on-going disciplinary proceedings, we do not consider it
fit to vacate the said order straightaway. Interests of
justice would, in our opinion, be sufficiently served if we
direct the Court dealing with the criminal charges
against the respondents to conclude the proceedings as
expeditiously as possible but in any case within a period
of one year from the date of this order. We hope and
trust that the trial court will take effective steps to ensure
that the witnesses are served, appear and are examined.
The Court may for that purpose adjourn the case for no
more than a fortnight every time an adjournment is
necessary. We also expect the accused in the criminal case
to cooperate with the trial court for an early completion
of the proceedings. We say so because experience has
shown that the trials often linger on for a long time on
account of non-availability of the defence lawyers to
cross-examine the witnesses or on account of
adjournments sought by them on the flimsiest of the
4 WP10934.2015
grounds. All that needs to be avoided. In case, however,
the trial is not completed within the period of one year
from the date of this order, despite the steps which the
trial court has been directed to take the disciplinary
proceedings initiated against the respondents shall be
resumed and concluded by the inquiry officer concerned.
The impugned orders shall in that case stand vacated
upon expiry of the period of one year from the date of the
order.
4. In view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the judgment cited above, it is desirable to direct the trial
court to conclude the criminal trial pending against the petitioner
within the specified time frame. Learned JMFC, Akole is thus directed
to conclude the hearing & recording of evidence in RCC No.56 of
2016 including the delivery of judgment as expeditiously as possible,
preferably within a period of one year from today.
5. The petitioner herein undertakes to cooperate with the
criminal court in expeditious disposal of the criminal case against
him. The respondent-Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation
shall also ensure availability of all the prosecution witnesses during
the course of trial before the learned JMFC, Akole, before whom the
trial is pending.
6. In the event of failure of the trial court to complete the trial
within the time frame stipulated above, it would be open for the
5 WP10934.2015
authority i.e. respondent to conclude the departmental proceedings
after completion of period of one year and proceed to record the final
conclusion. In such eventuality, stay of the departmental proceedings
shall stand vacated after completion of period of one year in the
event the trial court fails to conclude the trial being proceeded
against the petitioner.
7. Rule is accordingly made absolute.
[ A. M. DHAVALE ] [ R. M. BORDE ]
JUDGE JUDGE
sgp
