Back
2021 Supreme(Pat) 875
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
VIKASH JAIN, ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN, JJ.
Ugrasen Son of Sri K.N.P. Shrivastava, Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer/Safety Now posted as Deputy CEnHM - Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India through the Secretary, Railway Board, Ministry of Railway, Government of India – Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9204 of 2021
Decided On : 02-12-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. M.P. Dixit, Advocate, Mr. S.K. Dixit, Advocate, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Choubey, Advocate, Ms. Swastika, Advocate
For the Respondent:Dr. Anand Kumar, Advocate
Headnote:
Service Law – Departmental Proceeding – Decision to stay or resume departmental proceeding cannot be called an exercise of quasi-judicial power and such orders do not make Disciplinary Authority functus officio for that stage – Only a decision of final award of punishment or exoneration/dropping of charge by Disciplinary Authority can make him functus officio – A departmental enquiry is initiated with service of charge-memo and concludes with award of punishment or exoneration/dropping of charge – Disciplinary Authority is required to take decisions at different stages of a departmental inquiry and many a times he has to revise his earlier decisions, in view of changing circumstances – Such decisions may relate to appointment of inquiry officer or presenting officer or remitting an inquiry back to inquiry officer for de-novo inquiry – Decisions of Disciplinary Authority taken at different stages of departmental enquiry do not make him functus officio for that stage. (Para 17)
Service Law – Departmental Proceeding – Acquittal in criminal proceedings on same set of charges, per se, does not entitle delinquent to claim immunity from disciplinary proceedings – Criminal and departmental proceedings operate in different fields and have different objectives – Only valid ground for claiming that disciplinary proceedings may be stayed would be to ensure that defence of employee in criminal case may be prejudiced but even such ground would be available only in cases involving complex question of fact and law – Such defence ought not to be permitted to unnecessarily delay departmental proceedings – Interest of delinquent officer as well as employer clearly lies in a prompt conclusion of disciplinary proceedings – Order passed by Disciplinary Authority directing Inquiry Officer to proceed with enquiry is in accordance with law – Writ Petition dismissed. (Paras 17 to 19)
2017 (4) PLJR 739; 2008) 2 SCC (L & S) 678; 2014 (4) PLJR 210 (FB) – Distinguished.
(1996) 6 SCC 417 ; (2016) 9 SCC 491; (2014) 1 SCC (L & S) 641 – Referred.
(1997) 2 SCC 699 : 1997 SCC (L & S) 548; (2012) 1 SCC 442 : (2012) 1 SCC (L & S) 171; (1999) 3 SCC 679 : 1999 SCC (L & S) 810 – Relied.
JUDGMENT :
ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN, J.
Heard Mr. M.P. Dixit, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Dr. Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner, by way of filing the instant writ petition, has approached this Court for the following reliefs:
(A) For issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing/setting aside the order dated 16.02.2021 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna hereinafter CAT in Original Application No. 050/00595 of 2019 with MA/050/00065/2020 as contained in Annexure-1 of the writ application whereby and whereunder the instant Original Application has been dismissed without application of judicious mind.
(B) For issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing/setting aside the order dated 16.05.2019 contained in Annexure-8 of the writ application.
(C) For issuance of an appropriate writ (s)/order (s)/direction (s) in the nature of Mandamus holding and declaring the order dated 27.03.2018 issued by the Disciplinary authority i.e. respondent no. 2 as contained in Annexure-6 of the writ application, a quasi-judicial order, passed in compliance to the judicial order dated 18.01.2018, 15.02.2018 and 02.05.2018 as contained in Annexure-3, 5 and 7 respectively of the writ application and requires no interference till final disposal of the criminal proceedings.
(D) For issuance of an appropriate writ (s)/order (s)/ direction (s) in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to act upon on the basis of their own quasi-judicial order dated 27.03.2018 as contained in Annexure-6 of the writ application.
(E) Any other appropriate relief(s) for which the petitioner may be entitled to be granted.
3. Pleadings being complete, with consent of both the parties, this writ petition has been heard for final disposal at this stage itself.
4. The brief facts of the case, as appearing from the pleadings of the parties, are that the petitioner after qualifying the Indian Engineering Service Examination joined the Indian Railway Service as Mechanical Engineer and posted in the East Central Railway on 13.06.2005. After serving on the said post, the petitioner detected that due to erroneous agreement in favour of one Sri Anand Raj, about Rs.16 Lacs has been paid in excess against the vehicle contract and as such he put up a note for recovery of over payment in favour of Sri Anand Raj. After following due procedure, a recovery of Rs.34 Lacs was made against the said Sri Anand Raj. Being annoyed with the petitioner, due to the aforesaid reason, the said Sri Anand Raj in connivance with the CBI filed a complaint before it on 15.05.2007, alleging demand of bribe by the petitioner. Thereafter, Sri Praveen Kumar, Inspector, CBI was entrusted to enquire into the matter. On the basis of his verification report, First Information Report was lodged against the petitioner and he was taken into judicial custody. The petitioner moved before this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 27616 of 2007 and he was granted privilege of bail. In the meantime, charge-sheet was submitted before the CBI Court on 30.07.2008 but the learned court below has declined to take cognizance for want of pre-trap and post-trap memorandum vide its order dated 09.08.2008. However, the CBI court has taken cognizance on 11.09.2008, as alleged by the petitioner on the basis of concocted and manufactured pre-trap and post-trap memorandum. Then, the petitioner challenged the order taking cognizance dated 11.09.2008 vide Cr. Misc. No. 8861 of 2009, which was dismissed with liberty to pray for discharge before the learned court below but the learned court below dismissed his discharge petition on 20.02.2013 and thereafter, the petitioner filed Cr. Misc. No. 14016 of 2013 for quashing of the First Information report. This Court stayed the further proceeding in the said CBI case lodged against the petitioner bearing Special Case No. 08 of 2007, arising out of R.C. No. 12 (A) of 2007.
5. On 19.12.2008, respondent no. 2 issue
