P.L. Prasanna Kumar, Hyderabad vs Commissioner, Coal Mines ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2427 Tel

         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

               WRIT PETITION No.15876 of 2013
ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to direct the respondents

not to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the

1st respondent under Memorandum of charge dated 07.04.2011

and additional charges under the Memorandum of charge

dt.23/26.09.2011 till finality of the criminal proceedings initiated

under FIR No.348 of 2011 dated 19.12.2011 on the file of PS

Godavarikhani, based on the same set of allegations.

2) The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was an

employee of the second respondent and worked as UDC. While he

was working in the Head Office, the first respondent, being the

disciplinary authority, has issued charge memo dated 07.04.2011

and so also the second charge memo dated 23/26.09.2011 alleging

certain financial irregularities while processing House Building

Advance claims. Further, the respondents have also lodged a

complaint with the Director General of Police vide letter dated

06.06.2011. Based on the said complaint, the SHO Godavarikhani,

has registered a case in FIR No.348 of 2011 dated 19.12.2011 for

the offence punishable under Sections 468, 471, 409 and 420 of

Indian Penal Code. In consequence thereof, the respondent Police

have arrested the petitioner, remanded him to judicial custody and PK, J 2 WP_15876_2013

during the last week of December, 2012, he was enlarged on bail.

It is the specific grievance of the petitioner that initiation of

criminal proceedings as well as departmental proceedings,

simultaneously, based on same set of facts, is illegal and contrary.

Hence, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present

Writ Petition.

3) Heard Sri Srinivas Emani, learned counsel for the petitioner,

and Sri K.Aravind, learned Standing Counsel for Central

Government, appearing for the respondents.

4) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that while

the petitioner was working as UDC, charge memo dated

07.04.2011 was issued framing as many as seven charges and

thereafter second charge memo dated 23/26.09.2011 was also

issued framing three charges against the petitioner, alleging that

he was involved in commission of gross financial irregularities.

Learned counsel has further contended that the respondents have

proceeded to conduct an enquiry by appointing an Enquiry Officer

vide proceedings dated 09.05.2013, contrary to the directions of

this Court in W.P. No.23306 of 2011 and W.P. No.13380 of 2013.

The criminal case was initiated on the allegations/charges which

are identical and similar charges contained in the charge memo

dated 07.04.2011 and dated 26.09.2011 and the criminal case is PK, J 3 WP_15876_2013

pending adjudication before the jurisdictional criminal Court. It is

further contended that the action of the respondents in proceeding

with the departmental enquiry on the same set of allegations,

simultaneously, along with criminal proceedings is contrary to the

law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Captain Pal

Antony v. Bharat Coal Mines and another 1. Hence, the learned

counsel prayed to allow the writ petition and stay the proceedings

in departmental enquiry, till finality of the proceedings in criminal

case.

5) Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has

contended that vide order 20/23.05.2011, the Presenting Officer

and Enquiry Officer were appointed to hold an enquiry against the

petitioner for the charges levelled in the charge memo dated

07.04.2011 and additional charge memo dated 26.09.2011, which

are distinct and separate. After serving due notices of enquiry on

the petitioner, the departmental enquiry proceedings were held on

27.06.2011, 29.07.2011, 23.08.2011 and 13.10.2011. On receipt

of the enquiry proceedings, the petitioner filed W.P. No.28827 of

2011 with the same prayer as prayed for in the present Writ

Petition No.15876 of 2013 i.e. to declare the action of the

respondents in passing the impugned charge memo dated

1 (1999) 3 SC 376 PK, J 4 WP_15876_2013

07.04.2011 as illegal, an act of vengeance and contrary to the

service conditions and the same was dismissed by this Court vide

order dated 29.11.2011 on merits. Against the said dismissal

order, the petitioner has filed Writ Appeal No.1439 of 2011 and the

same was dismissed as withdrawn on 26.06.2013. Without

disclosing all these facts, the present writ petition is filed seeking

to stay all further proceedings including the proceedings in the

departmental enquiry initiated by the first respondent under

charge memo dated 07.04.2011. It is further contended that

subsequently second charge memo dated 26.09.2011 was issued

calling for his explanation for the alleged misappropriation. As the

petitioner has failed to submit his explanation to both the charge

memos, the matter was reported to the Police authorities by way of

a complaint and based on the said complaint FIR No.348 of 2011

dated 19.12.2011 was registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 468, 471, 409 and 420 IPC at PS Godavarikhani-I Town,

Karimnagar District, and charge sheet was also filed in the

criminal case against the petitioner and the same was numbered

as C.C. No.810 of 2020 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil

Judge, Godavarikhani, and the trial is in progress. Learned

counsel has further contended that there is no bar under the law

to proceed with departmental as well as the criminal proceedings,

simultaneously. In support of his submissions, learned counsel PK, J 5 WP_15876_2013

has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the High Court of

Andhra Pradesh in R. Subba Rao v. Chief Vigilance Officer 2.

6) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by both

the counsel.

7) A perusal of the record discloses that, on the allegation of

financial irregularities, the initial charge memo dated 07.04.2011

was issued to the petitioner, levelling as many as seven charges.

Thereafter, the additional/second charge memo dated 26.09.2011

was issued to the petitioner framing three additional charges. Both

are distinct and separate. Further, based on the very same set of

facts, a criminal case was registered vide FIR No.348/2011 dated

19.11.2011 for the offence punishable under Sections 468, 471,

409 and 420 IPC. Thus, two parrellel proceedings were initiated

against the petitioner by invoking the provisions of service and

criminal law.

8) The Hon'ble Apex Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony case

(referred supra), while relying and referring to its various earlier

judgments, has deduced its conclusions as under:

(i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is

2 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 121 PK, J 6 WP_15876_2013

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 of 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 questsion 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, administration may get rid of him at the earliest.

                                                                    PK, J
                                  7                       WP_15876_2013



9)    In view of clause (ii) referred in the above judgment coupled

with the given facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of

the opinion that, in the case on hand, it is desirable to stay the

departmental proceedings till conclusion of the criminal case

against the petitioner since the departmental proceedings and

criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner are based on

identical and similar set of facts and grave in nature.

10) Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed with a direction to the

respondents to proceed further with the departmental enquiry only

after conclusion of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

No costs.

____________________ PULLA KARTHIK, J Date : 15-09-2023.

sur