Delhi High Court
Union Of India & Anr vs Central Administrative Tribunal ... on 8 March, 2017
$~R-40
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 08th March, 2017
+ W.P. (C) 6147/2002 & C.M. No.10475/2002
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through Mr.Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC
with Mr.T.P. Singh and Mr.Sahaj
Garg, Advs.
versus
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND ANR .....Respondents
Through None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 05th October, 2001
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to
as the 'Tribunal').
2. Rule DB was issued in this matter on 25th September, 2002.
3. The necessary facts to be noticed for disposal of this writ petition are
that respondent No.2 (applicant before the Tribunal) had approached
the Tribunal assailing the orders dated 27th July, 2000 and 7th
December, 1999. By the former order, the subsistence allowance,
which was being paid to respondent no.2, had been reduced by 50% of
the initial amount and the latter was an order of the petitioners
refusing to revoke the suspension of the respondent no.2. Respondent
No.2 had urged before the Tribunal that the departmental proceedings
and the criminal proceedings having been arisen from the same set of
facts, identical evidence was to be led and thus, the departmental
proceedings should be stayed till the finalisation of the criminal
proceedings.
4. The petitioners (respondents before the Tribunal) had strongly urged
before the Tribunal that the applicant/respondent No.2 had committed
an unbecoming conduct by indulging in fraudulent payment of
bogus money-orders thereby causing a loss of public money. On the
basis of a preliminary inquiry and on being found involved in the
fraudulent action, respondent No.2 was proceeded against under Rule
14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. Additionally, criminal proceedings were
also initiated against him. Besides, respondent No.2 was suspended
and was being granted subsistence allowance. The petitioners had
also urged before the Tribunal that there was no bar on initiating
departmental proceedings on the same set of charges in which
criminal proceedings were pending.
5. The Tribunal while relying on Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold
Mines Ltd. and Anr., (1999) 3 SCC 679 partially allowed the OA and
stayed the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal
case. Para 22 of the said judgment reads as under: -
"22. The conclusion which are deducible from various
decisions of this Court referred to above are: -
(i) x x x
(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.
x x x"
6. As far as the order dated 27.07.2000 passed by the petitioners
reducing thereby the subsistence allowance of respondent No.2 by
50% of the initial subsistence allowance is concerned, the Tribunal
had set-aside the said order and the petitioners were directed to
consider afresh the issue of revocation of respondent No.2's
suspension and restoration of his initial subsistence allowance.
7. Today, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present
writ petition has now become infructuous, for the reason that the
criminal proceedings have culminated into an order of acquittal in
favour of respondent No.2. However, the counsel submits that since
the acquittal is not honourable, the department is contemplating
initiation of department proceedings or taking such action as available
in accordance with law.
8. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the
petitioners, the present writ petition is dismissed as having become
infructuous.
9. Pending application also stands disposed of.
G. S. SISTANI, J.
VINOD GOEL, J.
MARCH 08, 2017
"sk"/ka
