Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, Subrata Talukdar, JJ.
Subir Dutta - Petitioner
Versus
National Book Trust - Respondent
FMA 966 of 2013
Decided On : 17-12-2014
For the Appellant :Jiban Ratan Chatterjee and Pratik Bhattacharyya, Advocates
For the Respondent:Dhrubajyoti Ghosh and Somnath Maiti, Advocates
The court held that the disciplinary proceeding should be stayed to protect the appellant from prior disclosure of his defence in the criminal trial, as the charges in both proceedings were identical and prejudice would be caused to the appellant if he was compelled to disclose his defence in the departmental proceeding.
Headnote:
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING - STAY - CRIMINAL TRIAL PENDING - IDENTICAL CHARGES - PROTECTION FROM PRIOR DISCLOSURE OF DEFENCE - CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES (CONDUCT) RULES, 1964 - RULE 3(1)(I)(II)(III) - PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 - SECTIONS 7, 13(1)(D) - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 - SECTION 120B:
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, an employee of the National Book Trust, was facing disciplinary proceedings for allegedly demanding a bribe of Rs. 50,000 from a contractor. The charges against him were identical to those framed in a criminal trial pending against him for the same offence. The appellant filed a suit seeking a declaration that the disciplinary proceeding was void ab-initio and an injunction restraining the respondents from proceeding with the same.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the disciplinary proceeding should be stayed for a period of one year to protect the appellant from prior disclosure of his defence in the criminal trial. The court observed that the charges in both the criminal trial and the departmental proceeding were identical and that prejudice would be caused to the appellant if he was compelled to disclose his defence in the departmental proceeding.
Issues: Whether the disciplinary proceeding should be stayed pending the conclusion of the criminal trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following principles laid down by the Supreme Court in various judgments: 1. Departmental proceedings and criminal trials can proceed simultaneously unless the charges in both are identical and the charge in the criminal case is of a grave nature involving complicated questions of law and fact. 2. The stay of departmental proceedings is not automatic and the court must consider the facts and circumstances of each case. 3. The purpose of a departmental enquiry and a criminal prosecution are distinct and different. 4. The standard of proof required in a criminal case is different from the one required in departmental proceedings. 5. The continuance of departmental proceedings may cause prejudice to the defence of the employee in the criminal trial.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and stayed the disciplinary proceeding for a period of one year. The parties were granted the liberty to approach the court for appropriate orders in the event the criminal trial was not completed within the said period.
Subrata Talukdar, J.
In this appeal the appellant-petitioner has challenged the order dated 7th February, 2013 passed by the Ld. 13th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Title Suit No. 804 of 2012.
2. The present appellant was the plaintiff in the suit. The appellant filed the suit for declaration and injunction and claimed the following reliefs:-
"c. Decree for declaration that the purported disciplinary proceeding initiated by the defendant pursuant to the notice dated 22.11.2011 as stated in the plaint is void ab-initio and a nullity and the defendant had no right to initiate the said disciplinary proceeding in a manner and for the reason it was purportedly initiated, and the plaintiff is not at all bound to attend before any such disciplinary proceeding and is further not bound by any act done or findings made or orders passed in such void disciplinary proceeding.
f. Decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and its officers, agents and servants from proceeding with the purported disciplinary proceeding initiated pursuant to the notice of the defendant to the plaintiff dated 22.11.2011 and further restraining them to give any effect to and/or further effect to any order and/or finding made in such disciplinary proceeding and also restraining them from curtailing any right or benefit of the plaintiff as an employee of the defendant any manner arising out of and/or touching or concerning or related to the said purported disciplinary proceeding."
3. The appellant filed an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC praying, inter alia for an order of restraint on the defendant, its officers and agents from further proceeding with the disciplinary enquiry against him. According to the appellant, in respect of the self-same subject matter of the disciplinary proceeding he is facing criminal trial before the Ld. 2nd Special CBI Court, Kolkata. The Charge framed against the appellant reads as follows:-
"1. That, you being a public servant employed as Regional Manager, The National Book Trust of India, Kolkata demanded and agreed to accept an illegal gratification of Rs. 50,000/- from the Complainant Shri Biswajit Chanda as reward for having cleared the payment of bill for the work done i.e. temporary construction of Civil/Electrical/PA System for Nowgaon Book Fair as well as motive for favourable recommendation of tender of the Complainant firm for execution of similar work at Aizwal Book Fair to be invited in the month of July 2010 and accordingly on 30.06.2010 at Peter Cat, Bar & Restaurant at Park Street, Kolkata accepted an amount of Rs. 50000/- from one Shri Biswajit Chanda, (i.e. complainant) for yourself, as gratification other than legal remuneration, in pursuance of your demand made earlier as alleged in the complaint dated 30.06.2010 as a motive or reward for clearing the payment of bill for the work done i.e. temporary construction of Civil/Electrical/PA System for Nowgaon Book Fair as well as motive for favourable recommendation of tender of the Complainant firm for execution of similar work at Aizwal Book Fair to be invited in the month of July 2010 and you thereby committed offence punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and within the cognizance of this Court.
2. That, you being a public servant employed as Regional Manager, The National Book Trust of India, Kolkata on 30.06.2010 at Peter Cat, Bar & Restaurant at Park Street, Kolkata accepted an amount of Rs. 50000/- from one Shri Biswajit Chanda, (i.e. complainant) for yourself, as gratification other than legal remuneration, in pursuance of your demand made earlier as alleged in the complaint dated 30.06.2010 as a motive or reward for clearing the payment of bill for the work done i.e. temporary construction of Civil/Electrical/PA System for Nowgaon Book Fair as well as motive for favourable recommendation of tender of the Complainant firm for execution of similar wor
