1992 Supreme(Raj) 539

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Rajesh Balia, J.
Ghanshyam Lal - Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan and Ors. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3314 of 1991.
Decided On : 12-02-1992

1. Departmental enquiry can be stayed pending criminal trial if the main ingredients of the charges under investigation before the criminal court and the departmental enquiry are the same. 2. A government servant is entitled to release of annual grade increments and fixation in the revised pay scales during the period of suspension, as the contract of service subsists during the period of suspension. 3. A government servant cannot be kept out of consideration for promotion during the pendency of departmental enquiry.

Headnote:

DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY - STAY - CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS - ANNUAL GRADE INCREMENTS - PROMOTION - STAY OF DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY PENDING CRIMINAL TRIAL - RELEASE OF ANNUAL GRADE INCREMENTS - FIXATION IN REVISED PAY SCALES - CONSIDERATION FOR PROMOTION.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, an Upper Division Clerk, was placed under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. A criminal case was also registered against him in respect of the same charges. Petitioner sought to quash the charge-sheet and statement of allegations, and to restrain the respondents from holding the departmental enquiry. He also sought release of annual grade increments and promotion.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that there is no legal bar for simultaneous proceedings in respect of the same charge, in the criminal course as well as by way of departmental proceedings. However, in the instant case, the departmental enquiry should have been stayed as the criminal trial is likely to be conducted shortly. The court also held that the petitioner is entitled to release of annual grade increments which have not been released to him since 1.1.1974 and also to be fixed in the revised pay scale as and when revision of pay scale has taken place. The petitioner cannot be kept out of consideration for promotion as and when his case falls in the eligibility zone of consideration for promotion to next higher post.

Issues: 1. Whether the departmental enquiry should be stayed pending the criminal trial? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to release of annual grade increments and fixation in the revised pay scales? 3. Whether the petitioner can be kept out of consideration for promotion?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Kusheshwar Dubey v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Ors., 1988 (4) S.C.C. 319, which held that there may be cases where it would be appropriate to defer disciplinary proceedings awaiting disposal of the criminal case. In the instant case, the criminal action and the disciplinary proceedings are grounded upon the same set of facts, and the departmental enquiry should have been stayed. 2. The court relied on the decision in Kan Singh v. The State of Rajasthan, 1989 (4) S.L.R. 763, which held that an order of suspension is not an order imposing punishment on a person found to be guilty, and that the contract of service subsists during the period of suspension. The petitioner is entitled to release of annual grade increments which have not been released to him since 1.1.1974 and also to be fixed in the revised pay scale as and when revision of pay scale has taken place. 3. The court held that the petitioner cannot be kept out of consideration for promotion as and when his case falls in the eligibility zone of consideration for promotion to next higher post.

Final Decision: The petition was allowed. The respondents were directed to stay the further proceedings in departmental enquiry until decision of criminal case pending against the petitioner. The respondents were also directed to release annual grade increment to the petitioner since 1.1.1974 as and when same became due and to fix him in the revised pay scales from time to time when the revised pay scales came into existence. The respondents were also directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion as and when the cases of persons junior to the petitioner were considered for next promotion.