Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
DIPANKAR DATTA, MADHAV J. JAMDAR, JJ.
Sachin Subhash Bhosale – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, thorough Secretary and Others – Respondents
Civil Petition No. 7719 of 2022
Decided On : 28-09-2022
RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE - DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - STAY OF - PENDING CRIMINAL TRIAL - FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED - GRAVITY OF THE CHARGE - COMPLICATED QUESTIONS OF FACT AND LAW - PREJUDICE TO THE DELINQUENT EMPLOYEE - SIMILARITY OF CHARGES AND EVIDENCE - DISCRETION OF THE COURT - CONDITIONS FOR STAY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a member of the Railway Protection Force (RPF), is facing a disciplinary proceeding for alleged misconduct. He is charged with establishing contact with wanted accused in a Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act case and not informing his higher officials about it. The petitioner contends that the disciplinary proceeding should be stayed pending the criminal trial against him, as the charges are grave and involve complicated questions of fact and law, and that he would be prejudiced if he were to disclose his defence in the disciplinary proceeding.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the mere pendency of a criminal proceeding may not be sufficient for the accused/delinquent to avert a departmental action for maintaining discipline. However, a stay of the disciplinary proceeding may be granted if the delinquent establishes to the satisfaction of the Court that going ahead with the disciplinary proceeding is fraught with the imminent and genuine risk of disclosure of his defence, which would prejudice him to no end in the criminal trial.
Issues: 1. Whether the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner should be stayed pending the criminal trial against him. 2. Whether the charges against the petitioner are grave and involve complicated questions of fact and law. 3. Whether the petitioner would be prejudiced if he were to disclose his defence in the disciplinary proceeding.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner should not be stayed pending the criminal trial. The court found that the charges against the petitioner were not grave and did not involve complicated questions of fact and law. The court also found that the petitioner would not be prejudiced if he were to disclose his defence in the disciplinary proceeding.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition and vacated the interim relief granted earlier. The court directed the respondents to proceed with the inquiry and granted the petitioner an opportunity to submit his written statement of defence to the charge-sheet by 14th October 2022. The court also directed that no statement of any witness, including the said Rahul Shinde, shall be looked into by the inquiry officer unless such witnesses, including the said Rahul Shinde, are produced in the inquiry, confirm what have been recorded in the statements attributed to them and are offered for cross-examination by the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner is a member of the Railway Protection Force (hereafter “Force” for short) and employed as a Constable. He is facing a disciplinary proceeding initiated under rule 153 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (hereafter “RPF Rules” for short).
2. The memorandum of charge-sheet dated June 4, 2022 reveals the following charges drawn up against the petitioner:
1. Shri Sachin Bhosle, constable RPF Thana Kurduwadi, established constant contact with the wanted accused in the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act case and did not give any information about it to his higher officials.
This act of Mr. Sachin Bhosale constable RPF Thana Kurduwadi shows irresponsible gross negligence and unfaithful conduct in performing duty as a member of the force. In this way, the said constable has violated Rule 146.2(i), 146.3(i), 146.4, 147(i)(ii)(iii) of the RPF Rules, 1987.
Charge-II
2. Mr. Sachin Bhosale constable RPF Station Kurduwadi has informed the wanted accused persons in the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act case about their arrest and during the investigation misled the investigating officers and administration. This act of Mr. Sachin Bhosle constable R.S.B. Kurduwadi, being a member of the force, shows irresponsible gross negligence and unfaithful conduct in the4 performance of duty. In this way, rules 146.2(i), 146.3(i), 146.4, 147(i)(ii)(iii) of the RPF Rules, 1987 have been violated.
3. The statement of allegations in support of each of the above charges read as follows:
2. Preliminary investigation report has been submitted by the Primary Inquiry Officer and Inspector RPF/Passenger Safety Solapur under the letter Niri/Sota/PS/CON/2022 dated 25.05.2022, in which it has been informed that the preliminary investigation against the constable Sachin Bhosale Thana Kurduwadi. According to the statement of the witnesses, Mr. Sachin Bhosale Constable RPF Thane Kurduwadi was in constant touch with accused Rahul Shinde 07.05.2022, 12.05.2022 and 13.05.2022. By being in constant touch with the accused, he was giving suggestions to avoid arrest and tried to mislead the Investigation officials and the administration during the investigation. This act of constable Sachin Bhosle is unethical, which shows unfaithful conduct and has tarnished the image of force.
PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS:
4. Incidentally, the petitioner stands arraigned as an accused in a criminal proceeding bearing C.R. No. 08/2022 dated 08/05/2022 under sections 3(a) and 4 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (hereafter “RPUP Act” for short).
5. According to Dr. Chandrachud, learned advocate for the petitioner, the short questions which arise for decision in the present case are:
(ii) Are such circumstances present in the instant case?
6. Dr. Chandrachud contended that in a series of judgments, the Supreme Court of India has indicated factors which must be considered while deciding whether a departmental proceeding ought to be stayed pending a criminal trial. The legal principles flowing from several decisions, as summarized by him, are as foll
While criminal case is registered under Section 3(a) of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 which involves theft of Railway property, disciplinary proceeding is upon charges of gross neg....
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....
The burden is on the employee to show that the charges in both disciplinary and criminal proceedings are the same, involve complicated questions of fact and law, and that the defense has not been dis....
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 disciplinary proceedings can proceed concurrently with criminal cases, as they are distinct processes with different standards of proof.
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
