The Court held that the departmental enquiry should be stayed when 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, and the evidence to be led in both proceedings would be the same.

Nishita Mhatre, J.

1. The challenge in this petition is to the order passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal on 9th October, 2013 in O.A. no. 1096 of 2013. The Tribunal has refused to accede to the prayer of the petitioner to stay the departmental proceedings initiated against him till the criminal cases instituted against him are decided. The order of the Commissioner of Police, Kolkata, in this regard has been upheld by the Tribunal.

2. The petitioner was working as Officer-in-Charge of Economic Offence Wing, Enforcement Branch, Kolkata. An FIR was lodged against him on 3rd May, 2013 being FIR no. 2 of 2013 for allegedly demanding bribes for releasing a citizen who was in the lock up. The charge-sheet in this case was submitted to the Sessions Court, Calcutta on 22nd July, 2013 wherein the petitioner has been accused of committing offences under Sections 7/13(2) read with 13(1)(d) (i)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 384 of the IPC.

3. Simultaneously, on 4th May, 2013 another FIR was lodged against the petitioner being FIR no. 3 of 2013 for owning assets which were disproportionate to his known source of income. The charge-sheet has not been submitted to the Criminal Court in this case as yet.

4. Soon thereafter on 16th August, 2013 a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner by the department. The allegations described in the charge-sheet issued on 16th August, 2013 are the same as those contained in the FIR nos. 2 of 2013 and 3 of 2013.

5. On 2nd September, 2013 the petitioner submitted an application or representation to the Commissioner of Police, Kolkata, for staying the departmental enquiry. The representation was turned down by the Commissioner of Police on 5th September, 2013.

6. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed OA no. 1096 of 2013 before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal. In his application before the Tribunal he pointed out that the allegations contained in both the FIRs and the charge-sheet issued by the department to him were the same and that he would be gravely prejudiced if the departmental enquiry is permitted to proceed while the criminal trials were pending against him. The Tribunal did not accept the contention of the petitioner by relying on several judgments of the Supreme Court. However, the Tribunal observed that after a comparative analysis of the charge and the complaint in both the criminal cases one the one hand and the charges framed against the delinquent in the departmental enquiry on the other, they appeared to be similar. However, the Tribunal was of the view that since a huge amount had been recovered from the petitioner’s residence, the respondents could not be compelled to stop the departmental proceeding as that would be a denial of their rights to take appropriate administrative action in the interest of public service.

7. Mr. L.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the allegations contained in both the FIRs and the charge-sheet issued by the Commissioner of Police to the petitioner. He has submitted that a bare perusal of these documents leaves no manner of doubt that the allegations are based on the same set of facts, the allegations are grave and the petitioner is required to face allegations and charges which are both complicated and serious in nature. He, therefore, submitted that in the interest of justice it is necessary to stay the departmental enquiry in order to obviate any prejudice being caused to the petitioner in the criminal trials pending against him. He has placed reliance on several judgments in support of his argument which we will advert to presently.

8. The learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents urged that there is no need to stay the departmental enquiry as the charge is not complicated nor would the defence in the criminal trial be hampered if the departmental enquiry is allowed to proceed. He urged that when the Court considers whether the departmental enq