Deendayal Patel vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2286 Chatt

                                        1

                                                                         NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                           WPS No. 4848 of 2021
      Deendayal Patel S/o Shri Laichan Prasad Patel, Aged About 51 Years,
      R/o Brahmdev Colony, Bhatagaon, Police Station Purani Basti, District
      Raipur, Chhattisgarh.                                     ---- Petitioner

                                      Versus

   1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Law
      And Legislative Affairs, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur,
      Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

   2. The Registrar/ Executive Magistrate, Chhattisgarh State Consumer
      Disputes Redressal Commission, Behind Bus Stand, Depot No. 1,
      Pandri, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

   3. The    Superintendent,      Chhattisgarh   State   Consumer     Disputes
      Redresssal Commission, Behind Bus Stand, Depot No. 1, Pandri,
      Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

   4. President, District Consumer Disputes Redresssal Commission, Durg,
      District Durg, Chhattisgarh.                          ----Respondents

For Petitioner                    :    Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate
For State                         :    Mr. Ayaz Naved, Govt. Advocate


                    Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
                              Order on Board
13.09.2021

1. Aggrieved by the initiation of departmental inquiry, the present writ

petition has been filed.

2. The brief facts for adjudication of the present writ petition is that the

petitioner in the instant case was working as a Court In-charge at

Chhattisgarh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur.

The petitioner has been issued with a charge sheet vide order dated

17.05.2021 along with a list of witnesses and a list of documents.

3. The contention of petitioner is that for the same set of allegations for

which the petitioner has been issued with a charge sheet, he has also

been implicated in a criminal case wherein an FIR has been lodged

on 06.04.2021 at Devendra Nagar, Raipur for the offence punishable

under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 34 of IPC. The petitioner

herein also is one of the accused in the said criminal case. Counsel

for petitioner submits that the witnesses who have been cited as

witnesses along with the charge sheet are the same witnesses who

have also been cited as witnesses in the criminal case. This

according to the petitioner is going to cause severe prejudice to the

criminal case which has been initiated. The criminal case is at the

stage of framing of charge which is yet to be done. According to the

petitioner, in the event the witnesses are called upon to make their

statement before the departmental inquiry and the petitioner is asked

to cross-examine these witnesses, the very defence of petitioner in

the criminal case would get disclosed. The prosecution as such may

take the advantage of the same much before the trial in the criminal

case is initiated and therefore, his right is going to be substantially

prejudiced. Thus, counsel for petitioner prays for staying of the

departmental inquiry till the criminal case is finalized.

4. State counsel, on the other hand, opposing the petition submits that

the plain reading of the allegations and the charges levelled in the

charge sheet by which the petitioner would be subjected to a

departmental inquiry would show that the petitioner through the

charge sheet is prosecuted for the misconduct that he has committed

in service and the FIR in the criminal case which has been lodged

against him is for the offence which otherwise falls under the

provisions of the IPC. The contention of the State counsel is that the

standard of proof required for establishing the two proceedings are

entirely different and thus both the proceedings can go

simultaneously without affecting each other. It is the further

contention of the respondents that the departmental inquiry can be

established on the basis of preponderance of probabilities whereas in

the criminal case it is proved beyond all reasonable doubts which is

required. Thus, merely because of the examination of the witnesses

in the departmental inquiry by itself would not adversely affect the

interest of the petitioner in the criminal case.

5. As regards the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which

is by now well settled proposition of law that there is no legal bar for

continuation of the two proceedings, one under the departmental

enquiry and other under the criminal trial. However, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has repeatedly reiterated the fact that even though

there is no legal bar but in the event of the question of facts and the

nature of evidences to be adduced in the two proceedings are the

same, to avoid unnecessarily further complications, the departmental

enquiry should be deferred till the conclusion of the criminal case.

6. In the instant case, if we look into the allegations levelled against the

petitioner in the criminal case and the charges levelled against the

petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings, it would clearly reflect that

the allegations are the same that are levelled in the criminal case as

well.

7. As early as in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony V. Bharat Gold

Mines Ltd. And Anr. 1999 3 SSC 679 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

paragraph 22 had laid down certain guidelines where it has been

specifically held that in the event if the issue involves complicated

question of law and facts, if the evidences are similar, if not identical,

it would be desirable to stay the disciplinary proceedings. For ready

reference paragraph-22 of the said judgment is reproduced here-in-

under:-

22. The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this

Court referred to above are :

(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 honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, administration may get rid of him at the earliest.

8. A similar stand has again been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the case of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited vs. Girish

V. & Ors (2014) 3 SCC 636 which has also been relied by the

Counsel for the petitioner. The aforesaid view of the Supreme Court

has further been reiterated again in the case of State Bank of India &

Ors. vs. Neelam Nag and Others reported in 2016 9 SSC 491. In all

these cases, the principle of law so far as stay of the departmental

enquiry, in the event of the nature of allegations and the witnesses

remained the same, have not been diluted. The Courts have very

emphatically held that for stay of the departmental enquiry, there can

be no straight jacket formula which can be spelt out, it would all

depend upon the facts of each case.

9. This Court also in a recent writ petition of similar nature has relied

upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Avinash Sadashiv Bhosle (Died) through LRs. vs. Union of India

(2012) 13 SCC 142 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealing with

the similar set of facts and issues has categorically held that the

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 evidences in preceding case are common. The said

principle of law has been re-iterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

many other decisions previously and subsequently in the case of

State Bank of India & Ors. vs. Neelam Nag and Others 2016 9

SSC 491

10. A fact which needs to be kept in mind or that needs to be considered

at this juncture is the set of witnesses cited by the Department in the

departmental enquiry and the list of witnesses in the criminal case. A

perusal of the two in the present case would reveal that the list of

witnesses and evidences are similar and the nature of allegations in

the criminal case as also in the charge sheet are also same. In again

a recent decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shashi

Bhushan Prasad vs. Inspector General of C.I.S.F in case no. C.A.

No. 7130/2009, decided on 01.08.2019 has categorically held that

the two proceedings can go simultaneously except where the

witnesses and the evidences are same which in the instant case

appears to be same.

11. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid legal position as it stands for,

this Court is of the opinion that in the present case also keeping in

view the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to in the

preceding paragraphs, since the witnesses in the two proceedings are

similar, if not identical, in the interest of justice it would be more

appropriate, if the evidences in the departmental enquiry are deferred

till the evidences or witnesses in the criminal case of those witnesses

who have been cited in the departmental enquiry, are examined,

which would include the recording of the statement of the delinquent

himself who should not be compelled to depose in the departmental

enquiry ahead of the evidence on behalf of the department in the

criminal case is completed. It is ordered accordingly.

12.Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also

taking note of the judicial pronouncement as it stands, the present writ

petition if taken into consideration, it would reveal that for proving the

charges which have been levelled against the petitioner in the

departmental charge-sheet, the witnesses if not all, most of them

would be the same who are also the witnesses in the Criminal Court.

13.Under the circumstances, if the witnesses are permitted to be

examined in the disciplinary proceedings before they are examined in

the criminal Court, there is all likelihood of the evidences of the

petitioner being adversely affected.

14.For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the firm view that the writ

petition as of now can be disposed of with a direction to the

respondent-authorities to ensure that the disciplinary proceeding

initiated against the petitioner be deferred till all the witnesses in the

departmental enquiry who are also witnesses in the criminal case, are

examined before the Trial Court in the criminal case against the

petitioner and to proceed further with the disciplinary proceedings

thereafter.

15.The writ petition accordingly stands allowed and disposed of with the

aforesaid observations.

Sd/-

1. P. Sam Koshy Judge Khatai