There is no absolute legal bar in conducting both the departmental proceedings and the criminal trial simultaneously, and the charges in the departmental proceedings must be substantially the same as those in the criminal case for a stay to be considered.

G.S. SISTANI, J.

LPA 405/2018 and CM No. 29735/2018 (stay)

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the interim order dated 16.07.2018 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court vide which an interim application filed along with the writ petition seeking stay of the inquiry proceedings has been rejected.

2. The facts to be noticed for the dismissal of the appeal, are that the appellant has been employed with the respondent-bank as a Probationary Officer in the Foreign Exchange (Forex) Department. The respondent registered a complaint with the CBI on 9.10.2015 for the FOREX Scam, which took place in the bank. Pursuant to the F.I.R having been registered, the appellant was suspended by the respondent vide order dated 11.09.2015. Appellant was arrested on 13.10.2015. The CBI filed the charge sheet against the appellant and one, Suresh Kumar Garg, and on the basis of which the Court took cognizance vide order dated 02.02.2016 under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The claim of the bank against the appellant and other persons is to the tune of Rs. 13,75,45,819.28 crores, whereas it is the case of the appellant that he has been falsely implicated in the matter as he had no role to play.

3. According to the bank, the appellant had a strong role to play, which has led to a huge financial loss to the bank. In the writ petition so filed, the appellant had sought quashing of the order dated 10.05.2018 by which the representation of the appellant seeking stay of the departmental inquiry was rejected. The appellant had also sought that the departmental inquiry proceedings be kept in abeyance till the pendency of the criminal trial as the bare perusal of the allegations in the F.I.R and the statement of allegations in the disciplinary proceedings relates to the irregularities of FOREX transactions and are same. Thus, the continuation of the disciplinary proceedings is likely to cause prejudice to the rights of the appellant.

4. The learned counsel of the appellant has placed strong reliance on a judgment reported as (2014) 3 SCC 636 Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited vs Girish V. and Ors, in support of his submission that since complex questions of facts and law are involved in the criminal case pending, the departmental proceedings should be stayed. reliance is placed on paragraphs 9,10, 11 and 16, which we reproduce below:-

“9. In A.P. SRTC v,. Mohd. Yousuf Miya,(1997) 2 SCC 699, this court declared that the purpose underlying departmental proceedings is distinctly different from the purpose behind prosecution of offenders for commission of offences by them. While criminal prosecution for an offence is launched for violation of a duty that the offender owes to the society, departmental enquiry is aimed at maintaining discipline and efficiency in service . The difference in the standard of proof and the application of the rules of evidence to one and inapplicability to the other was also explained and highlighted only to explain that conceptually the two operate in different spheres and are intended to serve distinctly different purposes.

10. The relatively recent decision of this Court in Karnataka SRTC v. M.G. Vittal Rao, (2012) 1 SCC 442, is a timely reminder of the principles that are applicable in such situation succinctly summed up in the following words.

“(i) There is no legal bar for both the proceedings to go on simultaneously.

(ii) The only valid ground for claiming that the disciplinary proceedings may be stayed would be to ensure that the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced. But even such grounds would be available only in cases involving complex questions of facts and law.

(iii) Such defence ought not to be permitted to unnecessarily delay the departmental proceedings. The interest of the delinquent officer as well as the employer clearly lies in a prompt conclusion of the discip