Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
Firoz Ahmed
Versus
Union of India & Others
W.P. 15194 (W) of 2013 (Appellate Side)
Decided On : 26-08-2013
RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE - DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - STAY - CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS BASED ON IDENTICAL AND SIMILAR SET OF FACTS - WHETHER DEPARTMENTAL PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE STAYED - KEY LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously unless the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Inspector of the Railway Protection Force, was facing departmental proceedings for allegedly demanding and accepting illegal gratification. He sought stay of the departmental proceedings on the ground that the criminal proceedings based on the same set of facts were pending before the criminal court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the departmental proceedings should be stayed till the conclusion of the criminal case, as there was a real danger of the petitioner’s defence being disclosed in the departmental enquiry, thereby giving the prosecution a distinct advantage in its pursuit to prove the guilt of the petitioner at the criminal trial.
Issues: 1. Whether the departmental proceedings should be stayed till the conclusion of the criminal case. 2. Whether the charge in the criminal case was of a grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law. 3. Whether the petitioner would be prejudiced if the departmental proceedings against him were not stayed.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously unless the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact. 2. The test to be applied for ascertaining whether the petitioner would be prejudiced if the departmental proceedings against him are not stayed is whether in the event the petitioner is compelled to participate and produce evidence in his defence in the departmental enquiry, his defence in the criminal proceedings which would normally constitute the basis for the line and object of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses would already be known to such witnesses and it is not unlikely that they would be in a position to fashion or design their statements accordingly to suit the prosecution case. 3. If the line of defence of the petitioner is disclosed in course of the departmental enquiry, thereby giving the prosecution a distinct advantage in its pursuit to prove the guilt of the petitioner at the criminal trial, it ought not to be countenanced.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition in part and stayed the departmental enquiry till the conclusion of the criminal case.
1) The petitioner is an Inspector of the Railway Protection Force (hereafter the Force), South-Eastern Railway. Based on the allegation that he has committed an offence punishable under Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, read with Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, he is standing trial before the court of the Special Judge, CBI Cases, Ranchi.
2) The report under Section 173(2), Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter the Cr.P.C.) filed by the Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Ranchi dated April 11, 2011 reveals that a written complaint dated February 15, 2011 was received from one Sri Sankar Prasad Verma (hereafter the complainant). It was alleged therein that the petitioner (he was Inspector RPF Post, South-Eastern Railway, Muri, at that point of time) had demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 20,000/- from the complainant in lieu of showing favour to his cousin brother, Basant Kumar Kushwaha who was implicated in Case No. RC. 02(A)/11(R). It further appears that a trap was laid upon observance of pretrap formalities. In course thereof, the petitioner was found to have demanded and accepted the illegal gratification of Rs. 20,000/- from the complainant on February 15, 2011. Annexure II to the police report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C., being the list of witnesses by whom the prosecution wishes to establish the charges levelled against the petitioner, lists the names of 24 (twenty-four) witnesses including, inter alia, the complainant, Trilochan Mishra (independent witness), Priya Ranjan (Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Ranchi) and Khursheed Hasan (Assistant Security Commissioner, RPF, Ranchi).
3) By an order dated February 15, 2011, the petitioner was placed under suspension with immediate effect. On November 3, 2011, the Senior Divisional Security Commissioner of the Force initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner by issuing a charge-sheet. Annexures I and II to the charge-sheet are the Memorandum of Statement of Charge and the imputations of misconduct under Rule 153 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 reading as under:
“Charge Annexure – I
Sri. F. Ahmed, IPF/Muri is charged for serious misconduct, discreditable conduct and improper practice in that while posted and functioning as Inspector/RPF/Muri on 15.02.2011 he engaged himself in undesirable activity of demanding and accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 20,000/- from Sri Shankar Prasad Verma in criminal conspiracy with his driver by way of abusing his official position as a public servant.
He also failed to maintain absolute integrity, maintain devotion to duty and violated the Railway Servants Conduct Rule 1966.
Thus such act on the part of Sri F. Ahmed, IPF/Muri tantamount to serious misconduct, discreditable conduct and improper practice and violated para 3 of Railway Servants Conduct Rule 1966 and Rule 146.4.146.7(iii) of RPF Rules 1987.
Allegation: Annexure – II
While he was posted and functioning as Inspector, RPF/Muri, on 15.02.2011 he engaged himself in undesirable activity of demanding and accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 20,000/- from Sri Shankar Prasad Verma S/o Late Murli Manohar Mahato, R/O Vil-Gola Sunditoli with his driver in lieu of showing favour of his cousin brother Basant Kumar Kushwaha implicated in RPF/Post/Muri Case No. 02/2011. His driver Taufiq Alam tainted the bribe money with him on being handed over by him. The same was recovered by the CBI/RNC from the conscious possession of the driver Taufiq Alam in presence of available witnesses.
He also failed to maintain absolute integrity, and devotion to duty, which is unbecoming of a member of the force in the disciplined Armed force of Union.
Thus such act on the part of Sri F. Ahmed, IPF/Muri tantamount to serious misconduct, discreditable conduct and improper practice and violated the Railway Servant Conduct Rules 1966 and renders him violation of Rule 146.4, 146.7(iii) of RPF rules 1987 and para –3 of Railway Servant Conduct
AI
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
