Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.
Kanijam Sridhar - Appellant
Versus
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, represented by its Managing Director, and others - Respondents
Writ Petition No.8031 of 2021
Decided on : 04-07-2022
DEPARTMENTAL PROCEEDINGS - CONDUCT OF - PENDING CRIMINAL CASE - WHETHER DEPARTMENTAL PROCEEDINGS CAN BE CONTINUED DURING PENDENCY OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS - PRINCIPLES APPLICABLE - HELD, YES - WRIT PETITION DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a conductor in APSRTC, was charged with cheating and tarnishing the reputation of the Corporation. FIRs were registered against him under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. A departmental enquiry was initiated against him based on the same set of facts. Petitioner challenged the departmental enquiry on the ground that it would prejudice his defense in the criminal cases.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously unless there is a legal bar or the charges involve complicated questions of fact and law and the defense of the employee in the criminal case may be prejudiced. In the present case, the court found that the charges against the petitioner were not grave and did not involve complicated questions of fact or law. The court also found that the petitioner had not shown how the departmental enquiry would prejudice his defense in the criminal cases. Therefore, the court held that the departmental proceedings could not be stalled till the conclusion of the criminal proceedings.
Issues: Whether the departmental proceedings can be continued during the pendency of the criminal proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously unless there is a legal bar or the charges involve complicated questions of fact and law and the defense of the employee in the criminal case may be prejudiced.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri A.G. Satyanarayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Durga Prasad, learned standing counsel for the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short, “the A.P.S.R.T.C”) appearing for the respondents.
2. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the relief in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in conducting departmental enquiry on charge sheet No.01/114(07)/2020-GVRM dated 16.11.2020 being arbitrary, unjust, contrary to law and APSRTC Employees (CC&A) Regulations, 1967, in violation of principles of natural justice, discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 and 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, pending criminal case under Sections 406 and 420 IPC vide FIR No.449/2020 dated 16.09.2020 of Satyanarayanapuram Police Station, Vijayawada and vide FIR No.790/2020 dated 17.09.2020 of Bhavanipuram Police Station, Vijayawada, allegedly to be on the very same set of facts and same charges, and to set aside the same.
3. The petitioner’s case is that he was appointed in the year 1992 as Conductor and rendered unblemished service of 28 years. One V.M.S Sirajuddin along with others lodged a false police complaint holding the petitioner responsible in some cheating affected upon them. FIR No.449/2020 dated 16.09.2020 and FIR No.790/2020 dated 17.09.2020 at Satyanarayanapuram Police Station and Bhavanipuram Police Station, Vijayawada respectively were registered against the petitioner under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The Station House Officer informed the 4th respondent-Depot Manager, APSRTC, Gannavaram Depot of those cases, and the 4th respondent issued a charge memo No.01/114(07)/2020-GVRM dated 16.11.2020 to the petitioner on the charge of involvement in the cheating case for having cheated Sri B. Srinivasa Manikanta and his followers by collecting money of Rs.1,75,000/- from each of them assuring to provide house sites under “JNNURM” Scheme in Singhnagar, Vijayawada punishable under the provisions of Indian Penal Code, also, the said acts constituting misconduct under Regulation 28(xv) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1967 (for short, “the Regulations”), which tarnished the reputation of the Corporation in the eyes of the public as the incident was published in the news paper.
4. The petitioner submitted explanation to the charge sheet on 04.12.2020 denying the charges and requested to drop the charges in view of the criminal cases, but the 4th respondent did not consider such explanation. The 5th respondent also issued enquiry notice dated 06.01.2021 asking the petitioner to attend the enquiry on 11.01.2021 against which the petitioner again submitted representations but inspite thereof not only the notices dated 26.01.2021, 03.02.2021 were issued to attend the enquiry but the enquiry also proceeded ex parte and the enquiry officer submitted the ex parte enquiry report to the disciplinary authority, the 4th respondent, who issued letter No.01/114(7)/2021 GVRM dated 20.03.2021 seeking petitioner’s comments on the ex parte enquiry report.
5. This court vide interim order dated 09.04.2021 granted a stay in passing of the final orders in the disciplinary proceedings.
6. The challenge is mainly on the ground urged at the time of arguments, that all the charges in the charge memo are pursuant to the charges as in the FIR No.449/2020 dated 16.09.2020 and FIR No.790/2020 dated 17.09.2020 under Sections 406 & 420 IPC, based on the same set of facts. The witnesses in the criminal cases and in the departmental proceedings are the same and if the departmental enquiry proceeds it would cause prejudice to the defense of the petitioner in the pending criminal cases. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgments in cases of Capt. M.Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., 1999(3) SCC 679, Stanzen Toyotestsu India Pvt., Ltd., vs. Girish, (2014) 3 SCC 636, State Bank of In
The Tribunal concluded that simultaneous criminal and departmental proceedings can proceed only if they do not prejudice the applicant's defense, deferring the latter pending the conclusion of the fo....
Point of Law : Arguments advanced are clearly devoid of substance, as in present case, at no point of time any departmental enquiry has been held in the past, wherein petitioner has been exonerated, ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that departmental proceedings can be conducted simultaneously with criminal trials, except in cases where the defence of the employee in the crimin....
The standard of proof in criminal cases and departmental proceedings is different, and departmental proceedings cannot wait for the disposal of the criminal case if the allegations are different.
Departmental inquiries and criminal trials can proceed simultaneously unless staying the inquiry is necessary to prevent prejudice in the criminal trial.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
