Sarvjeet Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors

Debangsu Basak, J

The petitioner seeks postponement of a departmental proceeding in view of the charge-sheet suffered by the petitioner in a criminal proceeding.

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, both the proceedings cannot continue simultaneously. He relies upon an interim order dated June 12, 2018 passed in W.P. No.5050 (W) of 2018 (Jeetendra Meena v. Union of India & Ors.) as well as (1999) 3 SCC 679 (M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Ors.) in support of his contentions. He submits that, the petitioner received notice of the departmental proceeding on August 8, 2018. The charge-sheet in the criminal proceeding is dated February 19, 2019. He submits that, subject matters of both the proceedings are same. Same sets of evidence are likely to be adduced in both the proceedings. Therefore, he submits that, the departmental proceeding should be stayed till the decision in the criminal proceeding is arrived at.

Railways are represented.

The writ petition revolves around the issue whether a disciplinary proceeding and a criminal proceeding can be continued with simultaneously or not.

An incident occurred on June 24, 2018 at about19.40 hrs. A citizen was apparently accosted by Railway Protection Force personnel when such citizen was passing urine near Railway Protection Force Quarters. He was severely beaten up. The brother-in-law of the victim lodged a complaint with the Police on July 2, 2018. Such complaint was investigated into and the Police submitted a charge-sheet under Section 304/341/506/177/201/114/34 inter alia, against the petitioner herein.

The Railway Officials initiated disciplinary proceeding by issuing a charge-sheet dated August 8, 2018 against the petitioner. There are three charges in such charge-sheet. The first charge is that, the petitioner as theAssistant Sub-Inspector lodged a diary at 23.35 hrs. on June 34, 2018 and did not place the facts about the incident in such diary. Moreover, the petitioner did not inform the superior officers about the incident thereby misleading the Administration. The second charge relates to the same incident of June 24, 2018 and the petitioner is charged with bringing discredit to the reputation of the Railway Protection Force. The third charge also relates to the incident of June 24, 2019 and charges the petitioner of suppressing the truth about the incident.

The criminal proceeding is in respect of the incident of June 24, 2018. Whether the petitioner is complicit in such incident is for the Criminal Court to decide. The Railway Administration is looking at the conduct of the petitioner in relation to the incident. The Administration is of the view that, the petitioner brought about disrepute to the force and that, the petitioner misled the Administration and suppressed the facts relating to the incident. The charges in the disciplinary proceeding are different to the charges in the Criminal proceedings.

The petitioner suffered a notice dated August 8, 2018 relating to a disciplinary proceeding. The petitioner successfully stalled the disposal of the disciplinary proceeding till date. The charge-sheet in the criminal proceeding was submitted on February 19, 2019. Apparently, the petitioner is setting up one proceeding against the other for the purpose of delaying the disposal of both the proceedings Jeetendra Meena (supra) is an order, which is interim in nature. The facts and circumstances of the case where such an interim order was passed, is not on record in the present matter. In any event, that being an interim order passed in a pending writ petition, the same need not be applied for the purpose of deciding the present writ petition which is being decided finally.

M. Paul Anthony (supra) after noticing various authorities as to whether departmental proceeding and criminal proceeding can continue simultaneously or not held as follows: -

"22. The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are:

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

(ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case 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 a 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."

M. Paul Anthony (supra) is of the view that, there is no straight jacket formula laying down that, the departmental proceeding and the criminal proceeding cannot continue simultaneously.

A departmental proceeding and a criminal proceeding can continue simultaneously. The standard of proof in the two proceedings are different. In a criminal proceeding, charge is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In the departmental proceeding, the charges are considered on the standard of proof of preponderance of evidence. A departmental proceeding can be stayed given the pendency of a criminal proceeding, if, the two proceedings are based on identical and similar sets of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact. In the present case, the scope of enquiry in the departmental proceeding is different to those of the criminal proceeding. The involvement of the petitioner in the incident of June 24, 2018 is the subject matter of scrutiny in the criminal proceeding. The departmental proceeding cannot punish the petitioner if the provisions of the Indian Penal Code is found to be violated by him. In the departmental proceeding, the conduct of the petitioner as an employee of a Railway Protection Force in making false and misleading statements to the Administration and bringing disrepute to the organisation are up for scrutiny. The Criminal Court cannot have a say on the charges in the departmental proceeding. In the present factual matrix, it cannot be said that, the departmental proceeding and the criminal proceedings are based on identical and similar sets of facts and that, the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent is of grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact.

In the facts of the present case, the departmental proceeding is pending at least from August 2018. There is no reason why the departmental proceeding should not be concluded at the earliest.

In such circumstances, the authorities will continue with the departmental proceeding on a day to day basis commending from September 2, 2019. The authorities will not grant any adjournment to the delinquent in any manner whatsoever. It will endeavour to conclude the departmental proceeding within four weeks from September 2, 2019.

W.P. No.16544 (W) of 2019 is dismissed without any order as to costs.

Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.