Back
1997 Supreme(Pat) 277
PATNA HIGH COURT
N.Pandey, J.
Reyazul Haque
Versus
Bihar State Financial Corporation
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12299 of 1996 ;
Decided On : APRIL 7, 1997
The approach of a disciplinary authority in a departmental proceeding and that of a criminal court are distinct and different, and that the standard of proof, mode of inquiry, and rules governing inquiry and criminal trial are entirely different.
Headnote:
DEPARTMENTAL PROCEEDING - STAY - CRIMINAL CASE - SAME SET OF FACTS - STAY OF DEPARTMENTAL PROCEEDING - NOT WARRANTED - CRIMINAL COURT NOT COMPETENT TO PUNISH FOR CHARGES IN DEPARTMENTAL PROCEEDING - APPROACH OF DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY AND CRIMINAL COURT DIFFERENT - STANDARD OF PROOF, MODE OF INQUIRY AND RULES GOVERNING INQUIRY AND CRIMINAL TRIAL ENTIRELY DIFFERENT AND DISTINCT.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, employees of Bihar State Financial Corporation, were placed under suspension and departmental proceedings were initiated against them for financial irregularities, defalcation, and misappropriation of money. Criminal cases were also lodged against them for various offences. Petitioners challenged the suspension and departmental proceedings, arguing that the same allegations were the basis of both the departmental proceedings and the criminal cases, and that disclosing their defense in the departmental proceedings would adversely affect their defense in the criminal trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the charges in the departmental proceedings were not the same as those in the criminal cases, and that the criminal court would not be competent to investigate and punish the charges in the departmental proceedings. The court also noted that the alleged irregularities occurred over a long period of time and that the departmental proceedings had been ongoing for some time. The court further held that the approach of a disciplinary authority in a departmental proceeding and that of a criminal court are distinct and different, and that the standard of proof, mode of inquiry, and rules governing inquiry and criminal trial are entirely different.
Issues: Whether the departmental proceedings should be stayed until the conclusion of the criminal trial, given that the allegations in both proceedings were based on the same set of facts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a stay of the departmental proceedings was not warranted because the charges in the departmental proceedings were not the same as those in the criminal cases, and that the criminal court would not be competent to investigate and punish the charges in the departmental proceedings. The court also noted that the alleged irregularities occurred over a long period of time and that the departmental proceedings had been ongoing for some time. The court further held that the approach of a disciplinary authority in a departmental proceeding and that of a criminal court are distinct and different, and that the standard of proof, mode of inquiry, and rules governing inquiry and criminal trial are entirely different.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions and directed the respondent disciplinary authority and conducting officer to proceed expeditiously with the departmental proceedings without waiting for the result of the criminal proceedings.
N. Pandey, J.
1. Petitioner, at the relevant time, were serving the Bihar state Financial Corporation (in short (corporation) in different capacities. In view of certain allegations of financial irregularities, under various transactions, defalcation and misappropriation etc. of money by sanctioning and disbursing of loans to non-existent units, the respondents authorities have placed them under suspension and charges were framed by the Managing Director under several heads. At the same time, criminal cases were also lodged for the offences under sections 406, 409, 420, 466 467, 471 and 120-B IPC.
2. The petitioners have, therefore, challenged the order of suspension as well as departmental proceeding on the ground that with respect to same and similar allegations, criminal cases have been started. Therefore, in case, petitioners are compelled to disclose their defence with relation to the charges in the departmental proceeding, their defence in the criminal trial would adversely affect. It is stated a bare reference to the charges framed in the departmental proceeding and the allegations as made out in the complaint petition would show that disciplinary proceedings are grounded upon same set of facts on which criminal cases have been started. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to stay the disciplinary proceeding until conclusion of the criminal trial. To sound the legal position on this issue, reliance was placed to the decisions of the apex court in the cases of Kusheshwar Dubey v. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and others (AIR 1988 SC 2118) as also of this Court in the case of The State of bihar and ors V/s. Ram Lakhan Singh [1997 (1) PLJR 49] and two other unreported decisions in C. W. J. C. No.12003 of 1996 and C. W. J. C. No.7021 of 1991 disposed of on 18-12-1996 and 3-5-1993, respectively.
3. There is no dispute that in such matters, it is neither possible nor advisable to evolve a hard and fast formula valid for all cases. The principles as laid down in the abovementioned cases, have to be examined with regard to the particulars of individual cases. Thus, solitary question emerges whether in the instant cases allegations in criminal cases and disciplinary proceedings are based upon same set of facts and whether for the alleged charges on which departmental proceeding has been initiated, the criminal Court would be competent to record punishment.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent financial Corporation stating that a bare comparative study of the charges on which the departmental proceeding has been started and the allegations in the criminal case would indicate that criminal Court would not be able to record punishment for most of the charges even proved. It is stated that on a mere reference to the charges in the departmental proceeding one can gather that petitioners have been charged for sanctioning/granting and disbursing loans to non-existent firms in utter disregard to the statutory requirements and settled norms. It has also been alleged that approval was granted for supply of machines etc. to such firm which were not authorised dealers. There is also allegation that in collusion with fake promoters by misusing official position cheques were handed over to fake firms by the respective petitioners. Therefore, submission is that for such offences neither charges can be framed by the criminal court nor punishment can be recorded.
5. Mr. Alam, contended that in the case of Kusheshwar Dubey V/s. Bharat coking Coal. Ltd. (supra) the apex court as well as this Court in CWJC no.7021 of 1991 and in the case of The state of Bihar and ors V/s. Ram Lakhan singh (supra), have already held that such questions are to be examined, with regard to the particular facts of each case. Therefore, the respondent authorities be directed to examine such matters in detail and to ascertain whether in the background of ratio laid down in the abovementioned cases, it would be possible for t
