Sayar Singh vs Union Of India And Ors

Petitioner has filed the petition challenging the order dated 29.05.2020 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur, whereby, original

application filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner. In-fact, the

departmental proceedings were liable to be stayed as the charges levelled against the petitioner in the departmental proceedings as well as in the

criminal proceedings were exactly same. Criminal proceedings were still pending against the petitioner. Hence, till the conclusion of trial, departmental

proceedings were liable to be stayed.

Learned Additional Solicitor General has opposed the petition and has submitted that in the criminal proceedings, charges are yet to be framed,

although, the challan was presented in December, 2018 after the registration of FIR on 24.10.2018. In the departmental proceedings, now only one

witness remains to be examined. There was no occasion to delay the departmental proceedings. Allegations levelled against the petitioner were

serious in nature.

Petitioner was working as Inspector CGST Commissionerate, Alwar. FIR was registered against the petitioner on 24.10.2018 by Anti Corruption

Bureau Alwar II on the allegation that petitioner had demanded illegal gratification from Kanhaiya Sweets and Snacks and Kanhaiya Industries.

Challan was presented against the petitioner on 06.12.2018. Admittedly, till date, charges have not been framed against the petitioner. During the

course of arguments, it has transpired that departmental proceedings are near conclusion and only one witness remains to be examined.

Learned Tribunal while dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner has observed as under:- ""11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while relying

upon earlier precedents including the case of Mohd. Yousuf Miya (supra), has further drawn the conclusions to the following effect in the case of

Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra):-

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.

Though the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra) has evolved a principle that if the departmental proceedings and

the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature

which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it is desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case, but

still an exception has been created that the said principle cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings and due regard has to

be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. Here in the case in hand, the applicant is facing the charges of

demand of illegal gratification. The charge-sheet was presented by the Anti Corruption Bureau before the criminal court on 06.12.2018 and uptil today,

the charges in the said case have not been framed by the court; what to say about the commencement of the trial.

In our considered view, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the departmental proceedings shall be unduly delayed if those

proceedings are stayed to await the decision of the criminal court as the charges in the criminal court are yet to be framed against the applicant.

In the case of Stanzen (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while relying upon its earlier judgments including the cases of Capt. M. Paul Anthony

(supra), B.K. Meena (supra) and Mohd. Yousuf Miya (supra), has further summarised the law on the subject by making the following observations:-

It is unnecessary to multiply decisions on the subject for the legal position as emerging from the above pronouncements and the earlier

pronouncements of this Court in a large number of similar cases is well settled that disciplinary proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can

proceed simultaneously in the absence of any legal bar to such simultaneity. It is also evident that while seriousness of the charge levelled against the

employees is a consideration, the same is not by itself sufficient unless the case also involves complicated questions of law and fact. Even when the

charge is found to be serious and complicated questions of fact and law that arise for consideration, the court will have to keep in mind the fact that

departmental proceedings cannot be suspended indefinitely or delayed unduly.

In Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., (1999) 3 SCC 679 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 81 t0his Court went a step further to hold that

departmental proceedings can be resumed and proceeded even when they may have been stayed earlier in cases where the criminal trial does not

make any headway.

To the same effect is the decision of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena (1996) 6 SCC 417 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 145, 5where this Court

reiterated that there was no legal bar for both proceedings to go on simultaneously unless there is a likelihood of the employee suffering prejudice in

the criminal trial. What is significant is that the likelihood of prejudice itself is hedged by providing that not only should the charge be grave but even

the case must involve complicated questions of law and fact. Stay of proceedings at any rate cannot and should be a matter of course. xxxxx

(emphasis supplied)

It is settled law that departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously. However, in case departmental proceedings and

criminal proceedings are based on identical and similar set of facts then departmental proceedings can be stayed. However, due regard has to be

given to the fact that departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. In the present case, although, challan was presented against the petitioner in

December 2018, but till date, charges have not been framed against the petitioner in the criminal proceedings, whereas, in the departmental

proceedings, only one witness remains to be examined.

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, learned Tribunal rightly declined to stay the departmental proceedings during the

pendency of the criminal trial. No ground for interference is made out.

Dismissed.