Telangana High Court
S. Madan Mohan vs The Principal District And ... on 9 December, 2021
Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, N.Tukaramji
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
W.P.No.26617 of 2021
ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
The petitioner before this court, who was a Field Assistant
posted in the establishment of District and Sessions Judge, Ranga
Reddy District, has filed the present writ petition with a prayer to
stay the departmental enquiry proceedings dated 09.11.2020
initiated against him.
The facts of the case reveal that the complainant, K. Venkata
Srinivas, on 16.01.2020 lodged a complaint stating that for
implementation of court orders, bribe is being demanded. In those
circumstances, a trap was laid on 18.01.2020. The petitioner was
arrested and a criminal case was also registered for offence under
Section 7(a) and (b) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was
placed under suspension. The fact remains that departmental
enquiry has been ordered and a charge sheet has also been issued.
At the same time, he is facing criminal trial. A prayer has been
made to defer the departmental enquiry, in the light of the
judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
State Bank of India vs. Neelam Nag1.
A reply has been filed by the District and Sessions Judge,
Ranga Reddy District. It has been stated that there is no legal
power to stay the departmental enquiry and the departmental
enquiry cannot be stayed indefinitely keeping in view the judgment
1
(2016) 9 SCC 491
2
in the case of Stanzen Toyotestu India Private Limited vs.
Girish V and others2 .
This court has carefully gone through both the aforesaid
judgments and the fact remains that based upon the incident in
which there is an allegation in respect of demanding bribe, a
criminal case has been registered against the petitioner and he is
facing criminal trial as well as departmental enquiry. It is true
that the Statute does not provide for a bar to continue with the
departmental enquiry. However, in the case of State Bank of
India (1 supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraphs 27 to
31 of the judgment, has held as under:-
27. Accordingly, we exercise discretion in favour of the Respondent
1 of staying the ongoing disciplinary proceedings until the closure
of recording of evidence of prosecution witnesses cited in the
criminal trial, as directed by the Division Bench of the High Court
and do not consider it fit to vacate that arrangement straightway.
Instead, in our opinion, interests of justice would be sufficiently
served by directing the criminal case pending against Respondent
1 to be decided expeditiously but not later than one year from the
date of this order. The trial court shall take effective steps to ensure
that the witnesses are served, appear and are examined on day-to-
day basis. In case any adjournment becomes inevitable, it should
not be for more than a fortnight, when necessary.
28. We also direct that the Respondent 1 shall extend full
cooperation to the trial court for an early disposal of the trial, which
includes cooperation by the advocate appointed by her.
29. If the trial is not completed within one year from the date of this
order, despite the steps which the trial court has been directed to
take, the disciplinary proceedings against Respondent 1 shall be
resumed by the enquiry officer concerned. The protection given to
Respondent 1 of keeping the disciplinary proceedings in abeyance
shall then stand vacated forthwith upon expiry of the period of one
year from the date of this order.
(2014) 3 SCC 636
30. In the result, we partly allow this appeal to the extent indicated
above. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
31. A copy of this order be forwarded to the Sessions Court
concerned for information and necessary action for ensuring
compliance with the direction.
In the light of the aforesaid judgment, the trial court is
directed to complete the trial within a period of one year from today
and the next date of hearing shall be fixed after expiry of fifteen
days every month. The trial court, in case the witnesses are
available, shall also be free to proceed with the day-to-day trial. So
far as the departmental enquiry is concerned, as the witnesses are
common and the petitioner will have to disclose his defence during
the departmental enquiry, the departmental enquiry shall remain
in abeyance for a period of one year from the date of this order. In
case the trial is not concluded in spite of the aforesaid order, the
order staying the departmental enquiry shall come to an end
automatically as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
State Bank of India (1 supra).
With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands partly allowed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________________
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ
_______________________
N. TUKARAMJI, J
09.12.2021
JSU
