Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramkumar Purviya vs The Disciplinary Authority on 15 June, 2022
Author: Chief Justice
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 15th OF JUNE, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 10864 of 2022
Between:-
RAMKUMAR PURVIYA S/O SHRI SOHANLAL
PURVIYA , AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE
DISTRICT GWALIOR LALA KA BAZAAR
LASHKAR DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI VIKAS MAHAVAR - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS COURT GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
This petition coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Vishal Mishra, passed the following:
ORDER
The present petition is filed challenging the legality and validity of the
order dated 22.4.2022 passed by the respondent whereby the application filed
for staying the departmental proceedings during the pendency of the criminal
Signature Not Verified
trial when the same set of allegations have been rejected.
SAN
Digitally signed by MOHD IRFAN
It is submitted that the petitioner is working on the post of process server
SIDDIQUI
Date: 2022.06.21 11:22:09 IST
in the office of the Principal Judge Family Court Gwalior was assigned the
responsibility for depositing the CCD amount. He was served with a charge-
sheet alleging that he has not deposited the amount of Rs.7,72,500/- into the
Court Bank account and the allegations of embezzlement and misappropriation
of the funds was levied against him. When he has committed a misconduct as
per Rule 3 of the Conduct Rules 1965, the charge-sheet was filed against him.
The F.I.R. has also been registered against him for offence under Section 407
of Indian Penal Code at Crime No.457 of 2021.
It is pointed out that in both the proceedings on the same facts the
allegations are levied against him, therefore, continuation of both the
proceedings in parallel will disturb the evidence of the petitioner. Therefore, an
application was filed for staying the disciplinary proceedings during the
pendency of the criminal proceedings against him.
The law is clear as far as continuation of disciplinary proceedings and
criminal proceedings upon an employee is concerned. It is held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Secretary Lucy Sequeira Trust and others Vs.
Kailash Ramesh Tandel and others, reported in (2019) 6 SCC 155 that both
the proceedings are different and can be carried out against the employee. If an
employee is being charge sheeted and F.I.R. is being registered against him, he
is required to face both the proceedings.
The Supreme Court in the case of Shashi Bhushan Prasad v. CISF,
reported in (2019) 7 SCC 797 has held as under:
The purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution are
two different and distinct aspects. The criminal prosecution is
Signature Not Verified
SAN launched for an offence for violation of a duty, the offender owes
Digitally signed by MOHD IRFAN
to the society or for breach of which law has provided that the
SIDDIQUI
Date: 2022.06.21 11:22:09 IST
offender shall make satisfaction to the public. So crime is an act of
commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The
departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and
efficiency of public service. It would, therefore, be expedient that
the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as
expeditiously as possible. It is not, therefore, desirable to lay down
any guidelines as inflexible rules in which the departmental
proceedings may or may not be stayed pending trial in criminal
case against the delinquent officer. Each case requires to be
considered in the backdrop of its own facts and circumstances.
From the aforesaid it is apparently clear that there is no bar to proceed
simultaneously with departmental enquiry as well as trial of a criminal case
unless the charge in the criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated
questions of fact and law. Offence generally implies infringement of a public
(sic duty), as distinguished from mere private rights which are punishable under
the criminal law. When the trial of a criminal offence is conducted it has to be
done in accordance with proof of the offence as per the Evidence Act and
converse is the case of departmental enquiry wherein the proceedings relates to
conduct or breach of duty of the delinquent officer to punish him for his
misconduct which have been defined under the relevant statutory rules and law.
It is settled that the strict standard of proof or applicability of the Evidence Act
stands excluded in the case of departmental enquiry. In the department
proceedings the proof is not as high as in an offence in the criminal charge.
In view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid
cases, the disciplinary proceedings cannot be stayed.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Looking to the over all facts and circumstances and the law laid down by
Digitally signed by MOHD IRFAN
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, no illegality appears to have
SIDDIQUI
Date: 2022.06.21 11:22:09 IST
been committed by the respondent in rejecting the application for staying the
proceedings.
Petition sans merit and is accordingly, dismissed.
No orders as to costs.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
irfan
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by MOHD IRFAN
SIDDIQUI
Date: 2022.06.21 11:22:09 IST
