( 1 ) THE stay application arises out of an appeal preferred by the writ petitioner against the judgment and order dated 2nd July, 2004 passed by the learned single Judge in W. P. Nos 10613 (W) of 2004, dismissing the same on the ground that there was no merit in the writ application.

( 2 ) IN the writ petition the appellant had challenged the simultaneous continuance of disciplinary proceedings and a criminal investigation arising out of a First Information Report dated 8th February, 2004 lodged by the bank under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code.

( 3 ) THE learned Single Judge dismissed the application on the finding that since the criminal proceedings were only at an investigation stage, there is absolutely no guarantee that after the investigation the police would file a chargesheet against the petitioner. In such a situation, the learned Judge observed that nobody knew whether at all the writ petitioner would be required to face a criminal trial.

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order of dismissal of the writ petition filed by the appellant, the appellant has filed the present appeal and has also filed the instant petition for stay of operation of the order of the learned Single Judge as also all further proceedings of the departmental enquiry in respect of the chargesheet dated 11th March, 2004 issued by the Regional Manager, United bank of India, Burdwan Region, till the disposal of the criminal proceeding, being G. R. No. 152 of 2004, arising out of Asansol (South) P. S. Case No. 20 of 2004 under section 409 IPC.

( 5 ) APPEARING in support of the application for stay, Mr. Kalyan bandopadhyay, learned senior counsel submitted that the question which has been raised in the writ application and in the instant appeal, has fallen for consideration of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other Courts from as far back as in 1960 and that the consistent view which has been taken is that while both disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceeding may go on simultaneously, it would be better for the management to stay its hands in the departmental proceeding when the charges are of grave nature as by proceeding with the departmental enquiry, the employee concerned may be compelled to disclose his defence which could prejudice him in the criminal proceedings.

( 6 ) MR. Bandopadhyay referred to and relied on the latest decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Anr. , reported in AIR 1999 SC at page 1416, wherein all the previous decisions on the said question had been considered and in paragraph 22, the substance of all the previous cases has been summarised. The accuracy takes note of the fact that apart from the charge in the criminal case being grave, it would also have to be seen whether the questions involved are complicated questions of fact and law which would be disclosed on the basis of the evidence and materials collected during investigation or as reflected in the chargesheet. It has been indicated that in such a situation the management would be well-advised to stay its hands in the departmental proceedings.

( 7 ) MR. Bandopadhyay pointed out that a safeguard has also been provided in the said judgment in the event the criminal proceedings were delayed for some reason or the other on if the employee concerned employed dilatory tactics to delay the criminal proceedings. Referring to sub-paragraph (v) of paragraph 22, Mr. Bandopadhyay pointed out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that if the criminal case did not proceed or its disposal was unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if stayed on account of the pendency of criminal case, could be resumed and proceeded with so that the same could be concluded at an early date. Mr. Bandopadhyay urged that in the instant case the charge against the writ petitioner appellant was grave in nature since the punishment a sentence of even life imprisonment.

( 8 ) MR. Bandopadhyay submitt

Click Here to Read the rest of this document