M. Ramachandran vs State of Tamil Nadu and Another

Anand, C.J.—With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the main writ appeal is taken up for hearing.

The appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 12577 of 1989 decided on September 19, 1989.

In short facts giving rise to the filling of the writ petition were that the second respondent-Corporation lodged a complaint to the Police for

offences under Sections 408, 409, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal code against one P. Kothandapani and Deputy Manager (Traffic),

Cheran Transport Corporation, Comimbatore. The appellant was the Deputy Manager (Traffic) at the relevant time. He was placed under

suspension. The Department also started disciplinary proceedings against the appellant. Relying upon the judgment reported in Kusheshwar v.

Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. 1988 II LLJ 40 the appellant filed a writ petition seeking a direction to restrain the departmental authorities from

proceeding with the disciplinary proceedings during the pendency of the criminal proceedings against him. The learned single Judge found that at

that stage it could not be said whether the criminal action and the disciplinary proceedings had been grounded upon the same set of facts and

consequently dismissed the writ petition.

Learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated the same arguments as were raised before the learned single judge, and reference has once

again been made to Kusheshwar v. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (supra).

Learned Advocate - General has drawn our attention to the charge-sheet dated March 28, 1989 framed in the disciplinary proceedings which

enumerates various instances on which the appellant is sought to be proceeded departmentally.

There is a consensus of judicial opinion that domestic enquiry into misconduct of an employee during the pendency of parallel enquiry before

Criminal Court is permissible. Indeed in Kusheshwar v. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (supra) their Lordships after referring a catena of authorities

expressed an opinion that if the criminal action and the disciplinary proceedings are grounded upon the same set of facts, the disciplinary

proceedings can be stayed. They, however, cautioned that each case had to be decided on its peculiar facts. The Bench while administering the

aforesaid caution observed (p. 473) :

Whether in the facts and circumstances of a particular case there should or should not be such simultaneity of the proceedings would then receive

judicial consideration and the Court will decide in the given circumstances of a particular case as to whether the disciplinary proceedings should be

interdicted, pending criminal trial. As we have already stated, it is neither possible nor advisable to evolve a hard and fast, straight - jacket formula

valid for all cases and of general application without regard to the particularities of the individual situation. For the disposal of the present case, we

do not intend to lay down any general guideline"".

In Jang Bahadur Singh Vs. Baij Nath Tiwari, the Apex Court observed (p. 569) :

The issue in the disciplinary proceedings is whether the employee is guilty of the charges on which it is proposed to take action against him. The

same issue may arise for decision in civil or criminal proceeding pending in a court. But the pendency of the court proceeding does not bar the

taking of disciplinary authority. The civil or criminal court has no such power. The initiation of continuation of disciplinary proceedings in good faith

is not calculated to obstruct or interfere with the course of justice in the pending court proceeding"".

Thus, in view of the settled law as noticed above, we find that there is no illegality in the continuation of the disciplinary proceedings in the facts and

circumstances of this case when admittedly even no charge sheet has been drawn up against the appellant by any criminal court. In view of what

we have said above, we find no case to interfere with the order of the learned single judge. The writ appeal fails and is dismissed. The interim stay

shall stand vacated. No costs.

Learned counsel, Mr. Kalyanasundaram, appearing for the appellant states that he had not participated in the enquiry till October 30, 1989 on

the ground that the writ appeal was pending before this court. He states that his client will participate in the enquiry if another date is fixed for

enquiry. The learned Advocate - General appearing for the Corporation states that the Corporation would extend him with an opportunity which

he has desired. For this purpose the appellant has to approach the Enquiry Officer for a suitable date of hearing.