Back
2006 Supreme(Cal) 785
High Court Of Calcutta
MR. JUSTICE TAPEN SEN
SITARAM KEWAT - Appellant
Versus
COAL INDIA LTD - Respondent
W. P. 1028 Of 2006
Decided On : 12/12/2006
ASHOKE BANERJEE, S.PAL, SAPTANSHU BASU
There is no hard and fast rule that in every case the departmental proceedings must be ordered to await the finalisation of the criminal trial.
Headnote:
STAY OF DEPARTMENTAL PROCEEDINGS - CHARGE-SHEETS AND NOTICES OF ENQUIRY - SIMILARITY WITH CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS - SECTION 447/323/353/506 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE - SERVICE JURISPRUDENCE - STANDING ORDERS - DISTINCTION BETWEEN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AND DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - STANDARD OF PROOF, MODE OF ENQUIRY AND RULES GOVERNING THE ENQUIRY AND TRIAL - PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN IN KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN V. T. SRINIVAS (AIR 2004 SC 4127) - NO HARD AND FAST RULE THAT IN EVERY CASE THE DEPARTMENTAL PROCEEDINGS MUST BE ORDERED TO AWAIT.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, employees of Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., were charged with assaulting a senior personnel officer and were issued charge-sheets and notices of enquiry. They sought a stay of the departmental proceedings until the conclusion of a criminal case based on the same incident.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that there is no hard and fast rule that in every case the departmental proceedings must be stayed till the conclusion of the criminal case. The court distinguished the present case from the judgments relied upon by the petitioners, noting that the charges against the petitioners were extremely serious and that the objects of the two proceedings were totally different.
Issues: Whether the departmental proceedings should be stayed till the conclusion of the criminal case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the object of a criminal proceeding is totally different than the object of a disciplinary proceeding. In a criminal proceeding, the question is whether the offences registered against the accused are established and, if established, what sentence should be imposed. In a disciplinary proceeding, the question is whether the respondent is guilty of such conduct as would merit his removal from service or a lesser punishment. The standard of proof, the mode of enquiry and, the rules governing the enquiry and trial in both the cases are distinct and different.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that there was no merit in the petitioners' contention that the departmental proceedings should be stayed.
( 2 ) IN addition to this, the petitioners have also prayed for an Order directing the respondents to stay their hands in respect of the two Notices of enquiry, both dated July 28, 2006. (one being ECL/cmd/c-6b/enquiry 2:1/662 in respect of the petitioner No. 1 and the other, being ECL/cmd/c-6b/ Enquiry 3:1/663 in respect of the petitioner No. 2) as contained in Annexure P3 (between running pages 24 and 25 of the Writ Petition ).
( 3 ) THE petitioners have also prayed for stay of the aforementioned charge-sheets and notices of enquiry till conclusion Andal P. S. case No. 75/06 dated May 17, 2006 pending before the learned A. C. J. M. Durgapur in the district of Burdwan under Sections 447/323/353/506 of the Indian Penal Code.
( 4 ) THE petitioners have further prayed that the authorities should allow them to join their services forthwith and that they should not give effect to the Departmental Proceedings till conclusion of the criminal case.
( 5 ) THE short facts, stated in paragraph 5 of the Writ Petition, read thus:
"one Mr. Manindranath Mukherjee, Sr. P. O. Siduly Colliery lodged one complaint against your petitioners before the local police station with the allegations that when he was busy in his office with official jobs the petitioners alongwith 15-20 outsiders came to his office and assaulted him physically with lathi's without any provocation and petitioners have beaten him severally and brutally and dragged him out from his office and bring him to Durga mandir with an intention to kill him. And consequent upon such complaint the Andal police Station case No. 75/2006 dated June 17, 2006 under Section 447/323/353/506 of the Indian Penal Code has been started against the petitioners, and as such the petitioners have been arrested by the Police and enlarged on bail on that day. "
(Quoted Verbatim)
( 6 ) ON the basis of the aforementioned FIR, which is Annexure PI, the impugned charge-sheets and the Notices of enquiry were issued.
( 7 ) IT is stated that the petitioners filed their respective replies denying the allegations but without considering the same, the respondents issued the Notices of enquiry whereafter, the petitioners filed individual representations requesting them to stay the disciplinary proceedings till conclusion of the criminal case on the ground that both were based on identical and similar set of facts and that their defence in both the proceedings will be common. The respondents did not pay any attention to these representations and appointed the Enquiry officer. Affidavit-in-Opposition has been filed by the Senior Personnel Officer of the respondent No. 2 (i. e. Eastern Coal Fields Ltd.)and they have stated inter alia, that the petitioners are interested only in stalling the disciplinary proceedings when there is no bar in continuing with both the proceedings.
( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the case of Kusheshwar Dubey v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Others reported in AIR 1988 SC 2118 : (1988) 4 SCC 319 : 1988-II-LLJ-470 in support of his contention that since the criminal action and disciplinary pro'ceedings are grounded upon the same set of facts, the disciplinary proceedings should therefore be stayed.
( 9 ) HE also relies upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of rajasthan v. B. K. Meena and Others reported in AIR 1997 SC 13 : (1996) 6 SCC 417 : 1997-I-LLJ-746 in support of the same contention. The learned counsel also relies upon the judgment passed by the Division bench of thi
