B. Rajeshwar Goud vs Union Of India And 2 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 1163 Tel

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF
                        TELANGANA
                           ********

WRIT PETITION No.7663 of 2022

Between:

B.Rajeshwar Goud s/o. B.Dharma Goud, Aged about 46 years, Postal Assistant, Kamareddy H.O.

.... Petitioner And

Union of India, rep.by Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Communication & IT, Department of Posts - India, Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi and two others.

                                                            ..... Respondents


DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED                  :       15.03.2022



             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
                               &
             THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI


1.      Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers :       No
         may be allowed to see the Judgments ?


2.      Whether the copies of judgment may be :       Yes
        marked to Law Reporters/Journals


3.     Whether Their Lordship wish to            :    No
       see the fair copy of the Judgment ?
                                                                     PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J





                     *THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
                                        &
                       THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

+ WRIT PETITION NO.7663 of 2022

% 15.03.2022

      # B.Rajeshwar Goud s/o. B.Dharma Goud,
      Aged about 46 years, Postal Assistant,
      Kamareddy H.O.
                                                                 .... Petitioner
                                     Vs.

     $ Union of India, rep.by Secretary,

Govt. of India, Ministry of Communication & IT, Department of Posts - India, Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi and two others.

..... Respondents

!Counsel for the petitioner : Sri M.Venkanna

Counsel for the Respondents: Assistant Solicitor General

<Gist :

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:

WP No. 21012 of 2019 dt 15.10.2019 (2004) 7 SCC 442 AIR 1997 SC 13 (1999) 3 SCC 679 (2012) 1 SCC 442 (2014) 3 SCC 636 (2016) 9 SCC 491 (2005) 7 SCC 764 PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO and HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

WRIT PETITION No.7663 of 2022

ORAL ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Naveen Rao)

Heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri M.Venkanna and

learned Assistant Solicitor General for respondents.

2. Petitioner is a Postal Assistant in the Department of Posts,

Government of India. While he was working in Nandipet, Sub-Post

Office (for short S.O.), he was deputed to Makloor S.O to work as Sub-

Post Master (for short, 'SPM'). Having received complaints of illegalities

in the Makloor S.O., fact finding enquiry was conducted. Based on

the findings in the said enquiry, disciplinary action was initiated

against petitioner. He was placed under suspension on 29.6.2019.

On 1.9.2019 complaint was also lodged in Makloor Police Station

against petitioner alleging that there was shortage of cash of

7,70,535/- in S.O cash balance as on 29.6.2019. The complaint

was registered as Crime No.139 of 2019. On 18.9.2019 his suspension

was revoked.

3. He was served with charge memo dated 9.9.2019. The charge

memo contains six articles of charges. Enquiry Officer was appointed

to enquire into the charges. It appears, so far few sittings were held.

Petitioner submitted representation to defer departmental PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J

proceedings, till the criminal proceedings are concluded. As his

request to defer departmental proceedings was not acceded to by the

Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority, petitioner filed

O.A.No.891 of 2020 in the Central Administrative Tribunal,

Hyderabad Bench, praying to direct respondents to hold up

departmental proceedings.

4. Police concluded the investigation and filed charge sheet. The

learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nizamabad took

cognizance of offence. The petitioner is placed on trial in CC No.641 of

2021. He is charged under Sections 403 and 409 of IPC. He is the

sole accused. Section 403 of IPC is on dishonest misappropriation of

movable property and Section 409 of IPC is on breach of trust by

public servant. If held guilty of charge under Section 403 IPC the

accused may be sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a term of two

years or with fine or both. If convicted of the offence under Section

409 IPC, the accused may be sentenced to undergo imprisonment for

life or for ten years and in addition, fine can also be imposed.

5. By order dated 9.2.2022 the Tribunal dismissed the O.A.

Hence, this writ petition.

6. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant

Solicitor General for respondents.

PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J

7. The only issue for consideration is whether petitioner is entitled

to seek to defer Article-I when petitioner is facing trial on same charge

in the Criminal Court.

8. Whenever allegations of misconduct are made against an

employee, employer is competent to take disciplinary action and

punish him on proven misconduct. Such punishment can vary from

removal/dismissal from service to censure. Before acting against an

employee on the alleged misconduct, the employer is required to follow

due procedure. The gravamen of allegation in disciplinary proceedings

may also attract penal provisions which may entail launch of

prosecution by police. In such a case, the employee would be facing

disciplinary action under the employer and criminal prosecution.

Thus, on same allegation, a person who is also an employee of an

organisation can face two pronged action, disciplinary action by

employer and criminal proceedings by the State.

9. Relationship between employer and employee is one of contract

and regulated by terms of contract and/or Rules/Regulations/

Byelaws. The continuation in employment is based on trust and

confidence of employer. A proven misconduct may result in dismissal/

removal from service.

10. On the contrary, penal law is structured on the concept that

when a person commits crime, it may be against a person but would

be a crime against the society. Therefore, even if a crime is committed PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J

in a private place or within the four corners of employment, it is still a

crime against the society and State prosecutes him.

11. In the disciplinary action, misconduct can be established based

on principle of preponderance of probabilities. Circumstantial evidence

can be taken into consideration to hold the charge as proved and to

impose appropriate punishment. On the contrary, in criminal law the

charge has to be proved with cogent and unimpeachable evidence and

burden is on the prosecution to establish the charge. Any deficiency

and element of doubt in evidence will go against the prosecution.

Thus, the difference in departmental proceedings and criminal

proceedings is, presumption versus strict rules of evidence,

respectively.

12. Whenever, an employee is subjected to two pronged action, the

issue that often visits the constitutional Courts is whether it is

desirable to continue disciplinary action while criminal prosecution is

pending on the same set of allegations. The challenge is mounted by

employee against continuance of disciplinary proceedings on the

ground that while participating in the enquiry he may have to disclose

his defence and in such a case, it may be used against him in criminal

proceedings and would greatly prejudice in defending himself in

criminal case. Thus, the question that often troubles the

Constitutional Courts is in what circumstances, an embargo can be PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J

imposed on employer from proceeding against employee in disciplinary

matter pending investigation or trial in a criminal case.

13. There is well illuminated precedential path that takes this Court

to the issue of desirability to continue domestic enquiry pending

criminal investigation/trial. Few of them are noted hereunder.

13.1. In Mallaraset Rambabu Vs State of Telangana1, this Court

considered precedent decisions on the same issue and held as under:

"24...............From several precedent decisions including Stanzen Toyotetsu, broad principle evolved is, ordinarily disciplinary action should not be stayed even when criminal case is pending on the same set of facts and law and even if it is stayed, if there is delay in concluding trial, the employer should be permitted to hold domestic enquiry. Burden is on the employee to satisfy the Court that the charges levelled in both proceedings are same; the material facts and evidence relied on by the employer is same; that there are complicated questions of law and facts involved; and he has not disclosed his defense so far. Even if employee satisfies above parameters, Court may refuse to stay the domestic enquiry if there is a likelihood of delay in commencement and conclusion of criminal proceedings. Each case is required to be considered on its merits, by the Constitutional Courts whenever an issue of this nature comes up before the Court."

(emphasis supplied)

13.2. In Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others Vs T.Srinivas2.,

disciplinary proceedings were initiated leveling three charges. The

disciplinary action was challenged by the employee alleging that on

the identical facts, criminal trial was pending and therefore the

disciplinary proceedings should not be continued. The Central

Administrative Tribunal allowed the claim of the employee by holding

that first two articles of charges are identical to the charge leveled

against the employee before the Special Court under Prevention of

WP No. 21012 of 2019 dt 15.10.2019

(2004) 7 SCC 442 PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J

Corruption Act and third charge is inter-connected to the other two

charges. The High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal. The

Supreme Court found fault with the view taken by the Tribunal as

upheld by the High Court. The relevant portion of the Supreme Court

observations read as under:

"12. We think the above ratio of law laid down by this Court applies aptly to the facts of the present case also. ....

13. As stated above, in the case in hand, both the Tribunal and the High Court proceeded as if a departmental enquiry and a criminal trial could not proceed simultaneously, hence, they stayed the departmental enquiry which by itself, in our opinion, is contrary to the principles laid down in the above cited cases."

13.3. In State of Rajasthan v. B.K.Meena and others3, Hon'ble

Supreme Court held as under:

"14. It would be evident from the above decisions that each of them starts with the indisputable proposition that there is no legal bar for both proceedings to go on simultaneously and then say that in certain situations, it may not be 'desirable', 'advisable' or 'appropriate' to proceed with the disciplinary enquiry when a criminal case is pending on identical charges. The staying of disciplinary proceedings, it is emphasised, is a matter to be determined having regard to the facts and circumstances of a given case and that no hard and fast rules can be enunciated in that behalf. The only ground suggested in the above decisions as constituting a valid ground for staying the disciplinary proceedings is that "the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced". This ground has, however, been hedged in by providing further that this may be done in cases of grave nature involving questions of fact and law. In our respectful opinion, it means that not only the charges must be grave but that the case must involve complicated questions of law and fact. Moreover, 'advisability', 'desirability' or 'propriety', as the case may be, has to be determined in each case taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case.

.....

One of the contending considerations is that the disciplinary enquiry cannot be -- and should not be -- delayed unduly.

......

While it is not possible to enumerate the various factors, for and against the stay of disciplinary proceedings, we found it necessary to emphasise some of the important considerations in view of the fact

AIR 1997 SC 13 PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J

that very often the disciplinary proceedings are being stayed for long periods pending criminal proceedings. Stay of disciplinary proceedings cannot be, and should not be, a matter of course. All the relevant factors, for and against, should be weighed and a decision taken keeping in view the various principles laid down in the decisions referred to above."

(emphasis supplied)

13.4. In Capt. M.Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., and

another4, Hon'ble Supreme Court has delineated the principles on the

desirability of continuing disciplinary proceedings during the

pendency of the criminal proceedings. The parameters of judicial

intervention are set out in paragraph- 22. They read as 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, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest."

(emphasis supplied)

(1999) 3 SCC 679 PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J

13.5. In Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport

Corporation Vs M.G.Vittal Rao5, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Capt

M.Paul Anthony (supra) does not lay down the law of universal

application. Facts, charges and nature of evidence, etc., involved in

an individual case would determine as to whether decision of acquittal

would have any bearing on the findings recorded in the domestic

enquiry. (Paragraph-24).

13.6. In Stanzen Toyotestsu India Private Limited v. Girish V and

others6, Hon'ble Supreme Court reviewed the entire case law on the

subject and held as under:

"8. .... The law on the subject is fairly well settled for similar issues and has often engaged the attention of this Court in varied fact situations. Although the pronouncements of this Court have stopped short of prescribing any straitjacket formula for application to all cases, the decisions of this Court have identified the broad approach to be adopted in such matters leaving it for the courts concerned to take an appropriate view in the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case that comes up before them. Suffice it to say that there is no short-cut solution to the problem. What is, however, fairly well settled and was not disputed even before us is that there is no legal bar to the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings and a criminal trial simultaneously."

......

13. It is unnecessary to multiply decisions on the subject for the legal position as emerging from the above pronouncements and the earlier pronouncements of this Court in a large number of similar cases is well settled that disciplinary proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously in the absence of any legal bar to such simultaneity. It is also evident that while seriousness of the charge levelled against the employees is a consideration, the same is not by itself sufficient unless the case also involves complicated questions of law and fact. Even when the charge is found to be serious and complicated questions of fact and law that arise for consideration, the court will have to keep in mind the fact that departmental proceedings cannot be suspended indefinitely or delayed unduly.

.....

.....

(2012) 1 SCC 442

(2014) 3 SCC 636 PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J

16. .....The court examining the question must also keep in mind that criminal trials get prolonged indefinitely especially where the number of accused arraigned for trial is large as is the case at hand and so are the number of witnesses cited by the prosecution. The court, therefore, has to draw a balance between the need for a fair trial to the accused on the one hand and the competing demand for an expeditious conclusion of the ongoing disciplinary proceedings on the other. An early conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings has itself been seen by this Court to be in the interest of the employees."

(emphasis supplied)

13.7. Same principle is echoed in State Bank of India Vs. Neelam Nag

and another7.

14. From several precedent decisions noted above, broad principle

evolved is staying disciplinary action even when criminal case is

pending on the same set of facts and law is an exception and to be

resorted to in extra-ordinary circumstances of a given case. Even

when it is stayed, if there is delay in concluding trial, the employer

should be permitted to hold domestic enquiry. Burden is on the

employee to satisfy the Court that the charges levelled in both

proceedings are same; the material facts and evidence relied on by the

employer is same; that there are complicated questions of law and

facts involved; and he has not disclosed his defense so far. Even if

employee satisfies above parameters, Court may refuse to stay the

domestic enquiry if there is a likelihood of delay in commencement

and conclusion of criminal proceedings. Each case is required to be

considered on its merits, by the Constitutional Courts whenever an

issue of this nature comes up before the Court.

(2016) 9 SCC 491 PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J

15. From the precedent decisions, it is safe to assume that

disciplinary action should not be stopped merely because criminal

case is pending even on same set of facts and should be concluded as

expeditiously as possible. Deferring disciplinary proceedings on the

ground that criminal case is pending is an exception to normal rule

and to be exercised in a case where the criminal proceedings involve

complicated questions of fact and law and no greater harm would be

caused to employer by deferring the disciplinary proceedings; that

there is no possibility of delay in conclusion of criminal trial. Each

case has to be considered on the facts of the case.

16. It is appropriate to note that mere acquittal in criminal case

does not absolve an employee from disciplinary action. Irrespective of

the findings recorded by the competent criminal Court on the charge

levelled against him, the disciplinary authority is entitled to proceed

against employee to assess his conduct and if the disciplinary

authority comes to a conclusion that by his conduct, he has violated

the Conduct Rules, and thereby lost the confidence of the employer, it

can take appropriate disciplinary action as warranted by law including

dismissal from service.

17. At this stage, it is useful to note observations of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Ajit Kumar Nag Vs. Indian Oil Corporation8.

Supreme Court held as under:

(2005) 7 SCC 764 PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J

"11. As far as acquittal of the appellant by a criminal court is concerned, in our opinion, the said order does not preclude the Corporation from taking an action if it is otherwise permissible. In our judgment, the law is fairly well settled. Acquittal by a criminal court would not debar an employer from exercising power in accordance with the Rules and Regulations in force. The two proceedings, criminal and departmental, are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on the offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with the service rules. In a criminal trial, incriminating statement made by the accused in certain circumstances or before certain officers is totally inadmissible in evidence. Such strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental proceedings. The degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency. The rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused "beyond reasonable doubt", he cannot be convicted by a court of law. In a departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of "preponderance of probability". Acquittal of the appellant by a Judicial Magistrate, therefore, does not ipso facto absolve him from the liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Corporation. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the contention of the appellant that since he was acquitted by a criminal court, the impugned order dismissing him from service deserves to be quashed and set aside."

18. Though, there are six articles of charges in departmental

proceedings, issue in this case concern Article-I. Article-I reads as

under:

"Article-1:

Sri B Rajeshwar Goud, PA Nandipet SO while working at Makloor SO as Sub Postmaster on deputation from 01.05.2019 to 29.06.2019 kept shortage of cash of Rs.7,70,535/ (Rupees seven lakhs seventy thousand five hundred thirty five only) in SO cash balance on 29.06.2019.

It is, therefore, alleged that Sri Rajeshwar Goud, PA Nandipet SO while working at Makloor SO from 01.05.2019 to 29.06.2019 on deputation as Sub Postmaster has misappropriated Government cash and by his acts of omissions and commissions stated above violated the provisions of Rule 4 (1) and Rule 103 of FHB Volume I and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required of him by the Rule 3 (1)(i) and 3 (1) (ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and also acted in a manner of unbecoming of a Government Servant and thus violated the provisions of Rule 3 (1) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964."

19. The relevant portion of the charge sheet in CC No.641 of 2021

reads as:

PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J

"During his tenure at Makloor Sub Post Office the accused misappropriated the net cash 7,68,910/- and Postage Stamps 1,625/-. During the visit made by LW 2 Smt Y.Surekha, the then Asst.Supdt of Post Offices, Nizamabad North Sub Division, Nizamabad to Makloor Sub Post Office under Armoor Head Post Office and found while verification of cash balances it is noticed that the cash of 7,68,910/- and Postage of 1,625/- was kept shortage in Makloor Sub Post Office cash balance on 29.6.2019.

Thus, the accused B Rajeshwar Goud, Postal Assistant, Nandipet Sub Post Office while working on deputation at Makloor Sub Post Office as Sub Postmaster has failed to maintain the cash balance as per the receipt and payments of the Makloor Sub Post office records and utilized the Government money for his personal use."

20. In CC No.641 of 2021, the prosecution cited 14 witnesses to

sustain the charge. In the departmental proceedings, the Disciplinary

Authority cited 8 witnesses and 15 documents to be examined on

behalf of prosecution. The 8 witnesses cited by Disciplinary Authority

are same in the list of witnesses for prosecution in C.C.No.641 of

2021.

21. The gravamen of charge in Article-I in Departmental proceedings

and charge in Criminal proceedings is that on verification of cash

balance, shortage to the tune of 7,70,535/- was noted as on

29.6.2019 attributed to petitioner. Petitioner was working as Sub

Postmaster in Makloor SO on deputation from 1.5.2019 to 29.6.2019.

22. On comparison of Article-I in domestic enquiry with criminal

case, it is apparent that the allegation made against the petitioner in

the domestic enquiry and criminal case is same i.e., misappropriation.

23. To appreciate the contention of learned counsel for petitioner, it

is necessary to look into the pleadings of the petitioner. According to

petitioner Article of charge in the departmental proceedings and PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J

charge in the criminal case is identical and ingredients of the charge

in both proceedings are based on the identical facts and

circumstances. The evidence relied upon in both proceedings is same.

Based on these facts, it is contended that if the petitioner is made to

disclose the defence in the departmental proceedings, it would cause

serious prejudice to him to defend in the criminal proceedings.

24. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that the charge

levelled in the departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings

involve complicated questions of fact and law, therefore disclosure of

his defence in the departmental proceedings would adversely impact

his defence in the criminal proceedings. The pleadings in the affidavit

filed in support of writ petition are vague. It is not asserted as to how

prejudice would be caused to him in criminal case if domestic enquiry

is conducted. It is not stated how his defense in criminal case would

affect if disciplinary authority relies on material at his disposal and by

examining the witnesses. Thus, petitioner failed in discharging his

burden to pray for stalling departmental proceedings.

25. Though, learned counsel for petitioner asserted that petitioner is

seeking deferment of disciplinary proceedings only on Article No.1 till

conclusion of criminal proceedings, from the charge memo served on

the petitioner, it is noticed that all the charges pertain to his tenure as

Sub Post Master in Makloor Sub Post Office. In the second article of

charge, it is alleged that petitioner failed to dispose of surplus funds of PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J

Makloor sub office by remittance to the head office; failed to mention

the actual liabilities and reasons for retaining excess cash balances.

In Article no.3, the allegation is about his acts of omissions and

commissions stated in Articles-1 and 2 and that he violated the

provision of Rule 100 of Postal Manual Volume VI Part III. In Article-4

it is alleged that petitioner maintained excess cash than authorised

limits on four days during that period. It also alleges that during that

period, petitioner failed to mention whether there were liabilities to

retain excess cash and failed to submit reasons for retention of excess

cash beyond authorised balance. In Article-5, it is alleged that

petitioner failed to maintain sub office account for his period of office.

In Article-6 it is alleged that he was unauthorisedly absent from duty

on 29.6.2019.

26. From the allegations in Articles-1 to 5 prima facie, it is noticed

that they pertain to handling of cash during his tenure as Sub Post

Master on deputation. In Article-6 though allegation is unauthorised

absence, it is again connected to the whole episode. Statement of

imputations elaborates what is alleged in the articles of charges. The

evidence relied upon by the disciplinary authority does not specify as

to which witness would depose against which article of charge and

which document is relied upon to hold a charge. It may be possible

that deposition of any or all of the witnesses relied by the disciplinary

authority to sustain one or more charges. It is appropriate to note PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J

that 8 witnesses common in both proceedings are employees of the

Department of Posts and are concerned to Makloor SO. While

contending that he is seeking stay of enquiry only on Article-I, learned

counsel for petitioner has not explained as to how recording of

evidence only on Article-I can be separated. Thus, per-se accepting the

contention of petitioner would result in deferring the entire

disciplinary proceedings till the conclusion of criminal proceedings.

27. In criminal case, having regard to allegations leveled against

petitioner, there is no complicated question of law involved. The facts

are also not complicated as sought to be contended. What is required

to be established is whether there was shortage of cash attributable to

petitioner and whether the ingredients of Sections 403 and 409 of IPC

are attracted.

28. As per the directions of the High Court on administrative side,

Sessions Courts/Judicial First Class Magistrates are required to

assign high priority to cases which are pending for more than 5 years.

The criminal case is of the year 2021 and thus, it may take

considerable time for the trial Court to commence and conclude the

trial in the criminal case.

29. As consistently held by Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court, it is

not desirable to keep the disciplinary proceedings pending for long

time and should be concluded expeditiously. More so, as allegations

in Departmental proceedings concern misappropriation of public PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J

money, as a custodian of public money, it is in the interest of the

Department of Posts to conclude the disciplinary proceedings

expeditiously. It is also in the interest of petitioner to come clean as

soon as possible. The alleged incident occurred when petitioner was

working in Makloor Sub-Post Office till 29.6.2019, charge memo was

drawn on 9.9.2019 though few enquiry sittings were held

departmental proceedings are not concluded even after two years. In

fact, petitioner is dragging on by submitting representations and by

filing cases.

30. In the above analysis and in the facts of this case, it is neither

advisable nor desirable to defer disciplinary proceedings even on

Article-I. Petitioner is not entitled to stall the disciplinary proceedings

further, merely on the ground that criminal case is pending against

him. The Writ Petition is dismissed. Petitioner shall cooperate in

early conclusion of disciplinary proceedings. It is made clear that

there is no expression of opinion on merits and the defense of

petitioner in departmental proceedings and in criminal case is

preserved. It is open to petitioner to set up defense as available in law

in the domestic enquiry. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any stand

dismissed.

______________________________ JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

______________________________ DR.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI Date: 15.03.2022 Tvk/kkm PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO and HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

WRIT PETITION No.7663 of 2022

Date : 15.03.2022 Tvk/kkm