IMPORTANT POINT
Proceedings in criminal case and departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously, except where departmental proceedings and criminal case are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW-State Bank of India Officers Service Rules-Rules 67 and 68-Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2-Stay of departmental proceedings till conclusion of criminal trial-Sustainability-Employee was working as officiating manager with the appellant bank-Alleged commission of offences u/ss 406, 409, 420, 467 and 120B, IPC-According to employer bank, delinquent employee along with another employee of the bank, met Director (Finance) of a company and requested him to invest funds in the bank and offered interest @ 14.5% on invested funds-A cheque of Rs. 60 crores was issued and handed over to the employee for issuance of necessary deposit certificates in the name of that concern-Instead of issuing the deposit certificates employee got the amount deposited in the current account of another concern-A deposit receipt of Rs. 20 crore was in the name of said concern-On basis of deposit receipt, a demand loan of Rs. 15 crore was sanctioned to it-FIR was registered in respect of the employee-Departmental proceedings initiated relating to alleged irregularities committed by the employee-Suit filed to restrain appellant bank from proceeding further with departmental proceedings-Restraint order-Sustainability-Whether criminal case and departmental proceedings can proceed simultaneously-(Yes).
       Held : It is fairly well-settled position in law that on basic principles proceedings in criminal case and departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously, except where departmental proceedings and criminal case are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common. The purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution are two different and distinct aspects. The criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of a duty the offender owes to the society, or for breach of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. So crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. It would, therefore, be expedient that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible. It is not, therefore, desirable to lay down any guidelines as inflexible rules in which the departmental proceedings may or may not be stayed pending trial in criminal case against the delinquent officer. Each case requires to be considered in the backdrop of its own facts and circumstances. There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental enquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the charge in the criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law. Offence generally implies infringement of public duty, as distinguished from mere private rights punishable under criminal law. When trial for criminal offence is conducted it should be in accordance with proof of the offence as per the evidence defined under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the Evidence Act ). Converse is the case of departmental enquiry. The enquiry in a departmental proceedings relates to conduct or breach of duty of the delinquent officer to punish him for his misconduct defined under the relevant statutory rules or law. That the strict standard of proof or applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded is a settled legal position. Under these circumstances, what is required to be seen is whether the department enquiry would seriously prejudice the delinquent in his defence at the trial in a criminal case. It is always a question of fact to be considered in each case depending on its own facts and circumstances. (Paras 7 and 8)
       There can be no straight jacket formula as to in which case the departmental proceedings are to be stayed. There may be cases where the trial of the case gets prolonged by the dilatory method adopted by delinquent official. He cannot be permitted to, on one hand, prolong criminal case and at the same time contend that the departmental proceedings should be stayed on the ground that the criminal case is pending. (Para 11)
       Since learned Single Judge has not indicated even skeleton basis for his conclusion that matter is substantially the same, it would be appropriate for the High Court to re-hear the matter. Accordingly, the impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration. (Para 14)

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Leave granted.

2. By the impugned judgment a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court directed stay of departmental proceedings till conclusion of the criminal case pending against the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the employee ).

3. The order came to be passed in the following circumstances:

The employee was placed under suspension on 11.5.1994 for alleged omissions and commissions amounting to gross irregularities. He was, at the relevant time, working as officiating manager at the Green Park Extension branch of the bank. According to the employer-Bank (appellant herein) he along with one Y.K. Sharma, another employee of the bank, met Director (Finance) of M/s. Bharat Dynamics Ltd. at his Hyderabad office and requested him to invest funds in the Green Park Extension branch and offered interest @ 14.5% on the invested funds.

4. A cheque of Rs. 60 crores was issued and handed over to the employee for issuance of necessary deposit certificates in the name of aforementioned concern. According to the employer, instead of issuing the deposit certificates the employee got the amount deposited in the current account of one of M/s. Jaydees International and the deposit receipt of Rs. 20 crores was in the name of the said concern. On the basis of the deposit receipt, a demand loan of Rs. 15 crore was sanctioned to it. A complaint was lodged with the Crime Branch, Delhi Police on 12.5.1994 for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC ). The FIR was registered in respect of the employee and the other persons for their involvement in committing fraud and commission of other offences. Charge was framed on 19.6.1996 wherein it was noted that the employee along with one Shri John Daniel and Sri V.S. Murthy Director (Finance) of Bharat Dynamics Ltd. and others entered into a criminal conspiracy with the object to make available to aforesaid John Daniel Rs. 100 crores out of the surplus funds of Bharat Dynamics Ltd. A petition challenging the framing of charges is pending disposal before the Delhi High Court. On 25.2.1995 a show-cause notice was issued to the respondent-employee alleging that irregularities were committed while working at the concerned branch which facilitated an attempt to defraud the bank to the tune of Rs. 60 crores. It was alleged that he failed to discharge his duties with utmost devotion and diligence and acted in a manner unbecoming of a bank official and highly prejudicial to the bank s interest in violation of applicable Rule and such acts clearly amounted to misconduct.

5. Instead of submitting any explanation, the employee filed a reply by letter dated 31.3.1995 stating that the same shall be submitted at the appropriate stage. Charge-sheet in terms of Rules 67 and 68 of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules (in short the Service Rules ) was issued an 19.6.1996 relating to the alleged irregularities committed by the employee while working as Deputy Manager at the concerned branch. On 27.7.1996 employee refused to reply to the charge-sheet taking the ground that the matter was still pending in the Criminal Court and submission of reply shall amount to disclosure of defence during the departmental proceedings. On 16.11.1996 Inquiry Officer wrote a letter to the employee requiring the employee to appear at the inquiry. A suit was filed by the employee (Suit No. 801/1996) before the Civil Judge, Delhi along with an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the Code ) with prayer to restrain the appellant-bank from proceeding further with the departmental proceedings. The suit is still pending. An interim order of restraint was passed by learned Civil Judge on the application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code which was challenged by the bank in appeal before the Senior Civil Judge, Delhi, which was numbered as Appeal No

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 847

IMPORTANT POINTProceedings in criminal case and departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously, except where departmental proceedings and criminal case are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common.

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINT
Proceedings in criminal case and departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously, except where departmental proceedings and criminal case are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common.