K. Gopalan Kurup vs Union of India (UOI)

Bhagwati Prasad, J.—Heard learned Counsels for the parties.

It is the case of the petitioner in the petition that the petitioner was working as Income Tax Officer and alleged to have committed an offence to accept bribe of Rs. 20,000/- in February, 2001. As there was no substance in the allegations, no enquiry proceedings was initiated but the Criminal case was initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner was continued under suspension upto October, 2003 and on reviewing the order, suspension was revoked. Chargesheet came to be issued to the petitioner in April, 2004 and thereafter, the petitioner superannuated on 31.3.2005 but amount of gratuity, commutation of pension etc are withheld by the respondent. Petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad bench by filing OA/180/04. The Tribunal found case of petitioner meritorious and it was also found that criminal proceedings pending against petitioner and departmental enquiry to be initiated against petitioner on the same set of facts and evidence, oral and documentary and the witnesses are also same, and therefore, Tribunal restrained the respondent from proceeding with Disciplinary proceedings against petitioner for six months vide order dated 12.8.2004. It is also observed by the Tribunal that department is given liberty to proceed with the departmental proceedings in case the criminal trial is not concluded in the trial court within the aforesaid six months period.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner emphatically urged that defence of the petitioner in criminal trial and departmental proceedings would be same because the criminal case and departmental proceedings are having the same evidence and witnesses. Learned advocate for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner has already retired from service with effect from 31.3.2005.

Learned Counsel appearing for respondent has relied on judgment reported in case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Another, and State of Rajastan v. B.K. Meena and Ors. reported in (1996) SCC 417 and submitted that as the criminal case is not proceeded or is not disposed within the stipulated time given by the Tribunal, departmental proceedings should not be stayed till indefinite period.

We have considered the arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner at length. The Supreme Court in case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra) in para-22 held that 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 criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at the 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. In another case in case of State of Rajasthan (supra), the Supreme Court has observed that stay of disciplinary proceedings by the CAT till the conclusion of criminal trial cannot be as a matter of course and it should be based on all the relevant factors and by keeping in view the principles land down by the Supreme Court and it is in the interest of administration and the delinquent that proceedings be concluded expeditiously. From the record, it transpires that in the present case, Tribunal gave direction to proceed with the departmental proceedings in case the criminal trial is not concluded in the trial court within the period of six months vide order dated 12.8.2004. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and principles laid down by the Supreme Court, it cannot be ordered that the departmental proceedings are required to be stayed for indefinite period. Accordingly, the stay order granted by this Court is vacated and the department will be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner departmentally. The Department will follow the requisites of law. The petition is dismissed. Rule discharged.