The main legal point established in the judgment is that when the charges in the criminal case and departmental proceeding are similar, the evidence and witnesses are common, and the departmental proceeding has been stayed, the criminal trial should be concluded within a reasonable time, and until then, the departmental proceeding should be stayed.

ORDER :

SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J.

1. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has called in question legality, validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 11-8-2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Circuit Sitting at Bilaspur in Original Application No.203/00387/2020, by which the petitioner’s original application has been dismissed by the learned CAT finding no merit.

Question involved: -

2. The short question involved in the writ petition is, whether the petitioner herein can be proceeded departmentally by holding a departmental inquiry and a criminal trial on the same set of facts?

Factual backdrop: -

3. The aforesaid question arises on the following factual backdrop: -

4. While the petitioner was working as Senior Section Engineer (Safety) in South East Central Railway, Bilaspur, he was subjected to First Information Report (FIR) dated 18-9-2015 by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) under Sections 7 & 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the allegation that he has demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 25,000/- on 28-4-2015 from one Mr. Vijay Kumar, Assistant Loco Pilot, for favouring him in the matter of violation of safety norms by him. Subsequently, the petitioner was also charge-sheeted being Charge Sheet No.6/2015 before the Court of the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Raipur and trial commenced against him upon registration of Criminal Case No.1191/2015. Thereafter, on 24-9-2017, the petitioner was also subjected to departmental proceeding by issuance of memorandum of charges under the provisions of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 on the ground that he has accepted illegal gratification from Mr. Vijay Kumar, Assistant Loco Pilot, for violation of safety norms.

Thereafter, on 20-4-2018, charges were framed against the petitioner and on 10-7-2018, the petitioner filed a representation based on the Railway Board Memorandum dated 1-8-2007 for staying the departmental proceeding till the conclusion of criminal trial which was accepted by the competent authority and orders dated 7-9-2018 & 6-8-2019 were passed finding merit and substance as well and disciplinary proceeding was stayed. However, on 17-2-2020, 25-2-2020 & 9-6-2020, the competent authority issued memo regarding continuation of departmental proceeding consequent to which the petitioner filed O.A. No.203/2020 before the CAT for keeping the departmental proceeding in abeyance till the conclusion of criminal trial in which the learned CAT stayed the departmental proceeding on 5-8-2020, however, by the impugned order dated 11-8-2023, it has been vacated and the original application has been dismissed finding that no case is made out for staying the departmental proceeding against which this writ petition has been preferred.

5. Return has been filed opposing the writ petition stating that on same set of facts, criminal proceeding and departmental proceeding both can simultaneously continue and in that view of the matter, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

6. Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that since the charges in criminal trial/charge-sheet and memorandum of statement both are based one and same facts that the petitioner has demanded illegal gratification from Mr. Vijay Kumar, Assistant Loco Pilot, for violation of safety norms, which Mr. Vijay Kumar has violated, the charges are one and same and as such, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of State Bank of India and others v. Neelam Nag and another, (2016) 9 SCC 491 the trial deserves to be stayed for a particular period by granting the writ petition.

7. Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the Union of India/respondents,