A. Venkatesham vs APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyd. and others

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri V. Narasimha Goud and Mrs. Nanda Ramachandra Rao learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation. Both these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners were facing a criminal trial as well as the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the respondent Corporation against them simultaneously. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the disciplinary proceedings may be stayed in view of the pendency of the criminal trial against the petitioners initiated for the same acts, Learned Counsel for the petitioners very strongly and repeatedly relied on a judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited and another 1999 LLR SC 499, in support of his contention. I will refer to this case at an appropriate place.

Admittedly, the petitioners are the employees of the State Road Corporation. It is alleged that on 1-5-1999 the petitioners deliberately and intentionally assaulted one Sri Venkateswara Rao, who is working as Chief Inspector in the respondent-Corporation in Uppal Bus Depot, in a barbaric and heinous way while he was on duty on 1-5-1999 at about 22.00 Mrs. The said assault is alleged to have been made on Sri Venkateswara Rao to intimidate him on the ground that he was not permitting the petitioners to perform the duties as per their choice. A crime was alleged to have been registered u/s 307 read with Section 34 IPC against both the petitioners. That criminal trial is stated to be pending separately. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the said assault has not taken place in the premises of the respondent Corporation nor in any bus or vehicle belonging to the respondent Corporation. He, therefore, submits that there is no ground for initiating disciplinary proceedings in the first place and the said incident has nothing to do with the performance of the duty by the petitioners. Secondly, it is contended that criminal proceedings are on the same set of facts and on the basis of the same evidence initiation of the disciplinary proceedings cannot be allowed to proceed further, as it is likely to prejudice their defence. Thirdly, it is submitted that the respondents have not supplied the copies of the statements recorded in the course of the preliminary enquiry and also a copy of the police complaint given by Sri Venkateshwara Rao has not been supplied to them, and the respondents are bound to supply the copies of the said documents.

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation has contended that the scope of the disciplinary enquiry and the criminal trial is totally different and merely because of criminal proceedings are initiated, the disciplinary proceedings need not be stayed or postponed, it is further pointed out that the charges framed against the petitioners show that it is prima facie detrimental to the interest of the Corporation and the disorderly behaviour or intimidation by the petitioners even though outside the premises of the Corporation, the act is subversive of discipline inasmuch as the assault is allegedly the result of something having been done by the victim of the assault in discharge of his official duties as an employee of the respondent-Corporation. The petitioners also being the employees of the Corporation are liable to face the disciplinary enquiry. In such circumstances the initiation of disciplinary proceedings pending criminal trial simultaneously are not barred by any provision of law.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on Paul Anthony''s case (supra) in support of his contention that when disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings are on the same set of facts the departmental proceedings cannot be proceeded with. A broad argument is sought to be advanced by the petitioner''s Counsel basing on the said judgment (supra). However the facts and the law laid down in the said case will clearly show that in every case where the departmental proceedings and criminal trial is based on the same set of facts, the proceedings in the disciplinary enquiry have to be stayed is not the ratio of the said case.

Para 21 of the said judgment Paul Anthony''s case (supra) Reads as follows::

"21. the conclusions which are deductible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are

(i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceeded simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately.

(ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal proceedings 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 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, administration may get rid of him at the earliest".

It is clear from a reading of the conclusions of above said judgment that there is no bar for holding disciplinary I proceedings and criminal proceedings simultaneously. It is only in case where the petitioner is facing grave charges which involves very complicated questions of law and facts that it is desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court has made it very clear that the question as to whether the charges are grave or complicated, involving questions of fact and law, depends upon the nature of each case and the offence involved in the case. The factors are not to be considered in isolation. It is therefore clear that the case relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners has no application to each and every case where simultaneously proceedings are pending. On the other hand, the general rule is that there is no bar for continuing the disciplinary proceedings pending criminal trial by the concerned disciplinary authority. The facts of this case do not in any way show that there is any complicated question of fact or law or any question is dependent on the result of the criminal case. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that in Paul Anthony''s case (supra) the Court ultimately found that it was necessary to stay the disciplinary enquiry. However, the reason for staying the disciplinary proceedings in that case is recorded in Para 33 of the judgment. It was found in that case that the criminal trial as well as disciplinary enquiry depended on whether the recovery of the seized material was made in consequence of any search. A positive finding was recorded by the criminal Court in that case holding that no search was conducted and no recovery was made from the respondent-employee. That being the finding of the Court the whole case against the employee was thrown out and the employee was acquitted and therefore the ex parte departmental proceedings were also stayed. That case has absolutely no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. I am unable to accept the contention that in the instant pending criminal proceedings the disciplinary enquiry should be stayed. The contention of the petitioner''s Counsel that there is no case made out for framing the charges cannot be accepted. The relevant rules is to be found in Regulation No.28. Regulation No.28 (xviii) states that acts of riotous or disorderly behaviour or intimidation in the premises of the Corporation, or outside while on duty or any act subversive of Discipline including shouting of slogans of cruising the Corporation or its servants amounts to misconduct. Similarly, Regulation No.28 (xxxi) is to the effect that any act though not specifically mentioned as misconduct but which is prima facie detrimental to the interest of the Corporation amount to misconduct. It is seen from these clauses that the action of the petitioners in assaulting his superior officers, though the assault took place outside the Corporation premises or beyond the duty hours of the petitioners will still be misconduct if proved. Because such act is sub verse of discipline inasmuch as the act is alleged to have been committed against a superior officer in consequence of his refusal to give duties to the petitioners according to their convenience. The alleged assault has therefore direct nexus to the performance of the duty. I am therefore of the view that, prima facie there is a case made out for framing the charge and the consequences of which will have to be decided in the enquiry.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the statements recorded in the preliminary enquiry have not been supplied to the petitioners and hence the petitioners are unable to defend themselves. In support of his contention he relies on clause No.12 of Classification, Control and Appeal Regulations. Clause 12(3) states that an employee has to be served with statements of allegations or a copy of the report on which the charge is based and any other documents which it proposes to consider while passing the orders in the case. It is not disputed that the statement of allegations have been served along with the charge memo. However, it will be open for the petitioners to make a claim for perusal of the documents which are relied by the enquiry officer. The petitioners cannot claim the copies of each and every document which has been collected in the preliminary enquiry. It will be open for the petitioners to apply for perusal of the records before the enquiry proceedings proceed further and the Enquiry Officer shall permit the petitioners to go through record on which the enquiry is to proceed. In these circumstances, I am unable to accept the petitioners'' contention that the disciplinary enquiry against them has to be stayed or postponed.

In the result, both the writ petitions are disposed of with the above observations. No costs.