Jethu Dan vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Sandeep Mehta, J.—By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction for keeping in abeyance, the disciplinary proceedings instituted against him in pursuance of a charge-sheet issued to him under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules by a memorandum (Annex.1) dated 12.1.2009.

The principal ground of challenge laid to the continuance of the disciplinary proceedings is that the petitioner was also subjected to investigation in criminal case in relation to wholly identical charges to the ones contained in the charge-sheet (Annex.1) and the Anti Corruption Bureau, after completing investigation has filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner in the court of the learned Special Judge (Anti Corruption Cases), Jodhpur. The said trial is now reportedly pending before the learned Special Judge (Anti Corruption Cases), Jodhpur at the stage of charge arguments.

The case as set up by the petitioner is that, if the criminal trial and the departmental proceedings are allowed to continue simultaneously, the petitioner''s defence at the criminal trial shall be exposed and prejudiced. In order to demonstrate this fact, learned counsel has taken this Court through the allegations in the charge-sheet served to the petitioner under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules as well as the charge-sheet filed against him in the criminal case.

On going through both the documents, it is evident that the allegations therein are exactly identical.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court examined the concept whether the departmental proceedings can be conducted simultaneously to the criminal trial in the case of Avinash Sadashiv Bhosale (D) Thr. L.Rs.. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, (2013) 1 ABR 190 : (2013) 115 CLT 432 : (2012) 9 JT 585 : (2012) 9 JT 566 : (2013) 1 LLJ 1 : (2012) 9 SCALE 505 : (2012) 3 SLJ 392 and observed at para No. 54 of the judgment as below:

"Para 54. This Court recently reiterated the legal principle that departmental proceedings can be conducted simultaneously to the criminal trial in Narnataka SRTC v. M.G. Vittal Rao. In this case, making reference to almost all the previous precedents, this court has reiterated the legal position as follows:

54.A. There is no legal bar for both proceedings to go on simultaneously.

54.2. The only valid ground for claiming that the disciplinary proceedings may be stayed would be to ensure that the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced. But even such grounds would be available only in cases involving complex questions of facts and law.

54.3. Such defence ought not to be permitted to unnecessarily delay the departmental proceedings. The interest of the delinquent officer as well as the employer clearly lies in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.

54.4. Departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously to the criminal trial, except where both the proceedings are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common.

54.5. In our opinion, the principles culled out by this Court would be a complete answer therefore, all the submissions made by Mr. Jain."

Seen in light of the above judgment, it is clear that whenever a challenge is laid to the continuance of the departmental proceedings on the ground of pendency of the criminal trial, the court is required to examine as to whether both the proceedings are based on the same set of facts and whether the evidence in both the proceedings is common. In the case at hand, after examining the facts, this Court is satisfied that both the proceedings are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common. Thus, it would be apposite to direct that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner vide charge-sheet (Annex.1) should remain stayed during the pendency of the criminal trial. However, considering the fact that the charge-sheet was issued way-back in the year 2009, it would be absolutely unjust if the departmental proceedings are kept stalled for an indefinite period.

Whilst entertaining the writ petition, this Court by a detailed order dated 28.7.2010 had stayed the departmental proceedings. Nearly 5 years have lapsed since then and thus, it would be just and proper to direct that the criminal court which is seized of the trial against the petitioner should be instructed to expedite the trial and take the same to its logical conclusion at the earliest so that the departmental proceedings can be resumed.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the departmental proceedings instituted against the petitioner in pursuance to the charge-sheet (Annex.1) shall be kept in abeyance till the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is completed in the criminal Court. The learned Special Judge (Anti Corruption Cases), Jodhpur is directed to expedite the proceedings of the trial, going on against the petitioner and others in Cr.Regular Case No. 5/2012 and to conclude the same preferably within a period of one year from the next date already fixed. The trial Court after completion of the prosecution evidence shall immediately sent intimation thereof to the disciplinary authority, who shall thereafter be free to resume the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.

No order as to costs.