Chattisgarh High Court

Raju Ram Koma vs C.G. State Gramin Bank on 8 March, 2022

                                                                                      NAFR
            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                           WPS No. 1534 of 2022
    • Raju Ram Koma S/o Shri Ramanlal Koma Aged About 36 Years R/o
      Satighat, Police Station Raoghat, District Kanker Chhattisgarh.

                                                                             ---- Petitioner

                                          Versus

   1. C.G. State Gramin Bank Through The Chairman Head Office Sunder
      Nagar , Mahadevghat Road, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

   2. The Regional Manager C.G. State Gramin Bank Regional Office,
      Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.

   3. The General Manager And Disciplinary Authority C.G. State Gramin
      Bank, Regional Office, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.

                                                                        ---- Respondents.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Petitioner : Mr. Praful N. Bharat, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy

Order On Board 08.03.2022

1. This writ petition has been filed seeking for an appropriate

direction to the respondents to stay the further proceedings of the

departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner till the witnesses of

the respondent/Bank are examined in the criminal case that has been

lodged against the petitioner at the behest of respondent/Bank. The

prayer also is for quashment of order dated 24.12.2021

(Annexure-P/1) rejecting the representation of the petitioner for staying

of the further departmental enquiry.

2. Prima facie instant case is that an FIR was lodged against the

petitioner 03.08.2018 for the offence under Section 409 IPC and a

criminal case has already commenced. It has been been informed by

the learned counsel for the petitioner that out of 11 named witnesses in the charge-sheet, 8 witnesses have already examined in the criminal

case and out of the 3 witnesses left to be examined in which only one

of them is officer in the respondent/Bank and the other two are police

officials. Therefore, the petitioner prays that till these 3 witnesses are

not examined in the criminal case, the departmental enquiry may not

be proceed further as this would have an adverse dwelling on the

criminal case and the evidence which is going on.

3. Opposing the petition, learned counsel for the respondent/Bank

submits that the plain perusal of the charge-sheet would reveal that

apart from the charge for which the criminal case is going the charge-

sheet also consist of other charges and misconduct that has been

committed by the petitioner and which has nothing to do with the

criminal case and therefore, the departmental enquiry as such may not

be stalled as of now and moreover, substantial evidence has already

been recorded in the criminal case and therefore, this writ petition is

liable to be rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner however referred to the list of

witnesses cited by the prosecution to be examined during the course

of criminal case and submitted that out of the 11 witnesses 8 have

already been examined and out of the remaining 3 left, one witness is

from the Bank and two are the police officials. The one material

witness who is left to be examined is Rajendra Kumar Manikpuri.

5. So far as, the issue of deferring the departmental enquiry till

material witnesses in the criminal case are examined that has been a

catena of the decision which has been laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the this regard where it has been time and again

reiterated that there is no bar as such which prevents the two

proceedings going on simultaneously, however, in the event if the witnesses are those who are also witnesses in the criminal case and

are also witnesses in the departmental enquiry in respect of the same

allegation then in that case the departmental enquiry to that extent

should be deferred till the material witnesses are examined in the

criminal case.

6. In WPS No.1833/2020 (Shyam Kumar Singh Vs. UOI and anr. It

has been held that:-

"9. 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."

"11. As early as in the case of "Capt. M. Paul Anthony V. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. And Anr." (1999) 3 SCC 679 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 22 had laid down certain guidelines and where it has been specifcally 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 No. 22 of the said judgment is reproduced hereinunder:-

"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 ofence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as refected 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."

"12. 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" (2016) 9 SCC 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 th same have not been diluted. The Courts have very emphatically held 7 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.

13. 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 inpreceding 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 SCC 491.

14. 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."

7. The plain reading of the aforesaid legal precedents which have

been laid down now coming to the fact of the present case, as per

contention of the petitioner and also from what is reflected from the

documents enclosed along with the writ petition there is only one

material witness of the respondent/Bank who is yet to be examined in

the criminal case and who appears to be a material witness, so far as, the charge No.1 levelled against the petitioner in the charge-sheet is

concerned and for the same charge the petitioner has also been

prosecuted for the offence under Section 409 IPC. Under these

circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that as of now the writ

petition stands disposed of directing the respondents to ensure that

the departmental enquiry stands deferred till Shri Rajendra Kumar

Manikpuri is examined before the criminal Court and thereafter, the