Balaiah, B. vs Enquiring Authority, Dto, Ksrtc and Others

The petitioner who is a driver in the service of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (Corporation in short) has questioned the legality of the commencement of the disciplinary proceedings against, him, when in respect of the same allegation, investigation under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code is under progress.

The facts of the case in brief are as follows:

Article of charges dt. 30th Septr., 1982 had been served on the petitioner in connection with the disciplinary proceedings proposed to be held against him by the Corporation. The substance of the charge framed against the petitioner was that he was a party for smuggling sandalwood billets through the bus belonging to the Corporation of which he is driver.

Sri R. Narayana learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that no disciplinary proceeding could have been instituted when in respect of the same charge a criminal case has been registered against him, and investigation is under progress.

I find it difficult to agree With the contention urged lor the petitioner that the Corporation has no authority to hold the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in respect of the charge, just because the criminal investigation is under progress in respect of the same charge. This question is fully covered by a decision of this Court in Sri Rama v. Superintendent of Police, (1967) 1 Mys. LJ 12. In the said case It was held that it was competent for the master to hold the disciplinary proceedings against his servant even though in respect of the same charge a criminal case was pending.

The learned counsel however relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd., v. Kushal Bhan, AIR 1960 SC 806. He submitted that there was a clear observation of the Supreme Court in the said decision to the effect that when a criminal case is pending against an employee in respect of the charge of a grave nature, It was desirable that the master should not hold the disciplinary proceeding as it might result in compelling the concerned employee to disclose his defence before the criminal Court in the departmental proceedings.

In the same case, the Supreme Court has held, that principles of natural justice do not require that an employer must wait for the decision to be tendered by a criminal Court and should not commence the disciplinary proceedings when a criminal case is pending in respect of the same conduct. Therefore, it is clear that the observations of the Supreme Court that it was not desirable for the master not to hold an inquiry during the pendency of criminal trial on a grave charge does not mean that there is anything in law which prohibits the holding of any such inquiry, particularly in a case of this type where a statutory corporation is exercising its statutory powers to hold disciplinary proceedings against its servant.

I am unable to agree that there is any legal prohibition for the holding of disciplinary proceedings just because a criminal case is pending. As held by the Supreme Court in Venkataraman v. Union of India, AIR 1954 SC 375, the departmental inquiry in which a servant is answerable to his master, which might end in a departmental penalty is entirely different than the criminal trial in which the same person in respect of the same act is prosecuted for violation of the penal law of the land which might end in conviction and sentence. As pointed out earlier, the Division Bench decision of this Court in Sri Rama''s case, (1967) 1 Mys. LJ 12, is directly on the point. It is also well settled that a writ in the nature of prohibition preventing the holding of a domestic inquiry can issue only when there is total lack of jurisdiction and no such infirmity exists in this case. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the contention urged for the petitioner.

Sri Narayana, learned counsel next contended that at least the request of the petitioner for engaging an Advocate to defend him in the inquiry should have been considered and granted, as, having regard to the nature of the charge, it was impossible for the petitioner to defend himself, as he was not equal to the task. He submitted that the inquiry has been fixed on 23rd Novr., 1982, but still no orders are passed on his application.

In view of this contention, I directed Sri H.G. Balakrishna, learned standing counsel for the Corporation to take notice. Accordingly, he took notice and submitted that the competent authority will consider the said request of the petitioner and pass orders before the commencement of the inquiry.

In the circumstances, I make the following order.

Writ petition is rejected subject to the submission made by the learned counsel for the Corporation.