Back
1996 Supreme(Raj) 587
Supreme Court
Honble B.P. JEEVAN REDDY & K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.
State of Rajasthan - Appellant
Versus
B.K. Meena and Others - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 12563 of 1996 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1026 of 1995)
Decided On : September 27, 1996
Aruneshwar Gupta, Manoj K. Das and Mainish Garg, Advocate, for Appellant K. Madhva Reddy, Sr. Advocate, S.K. Jain, A.P. Dhamija and K.K. Gogna, Advocates, for Respondents
Headnote:Service Law – Where discipilinary proceedings are going on along with the criminal proceedings, which proceedings should be stayed? – Advisability and desirability? – All relevant for and against are to be weighted – Criminal proceedings should not be delayed, is the general rule.
One of the contending consideration is that the disciplinary enquiry cannot be- and should not be delayed unduly. So far as criminal cases are concerned, it is well-known that they drag on endlessly where high officials or persons holding high public offices are involved. They get bogged down on one or the other ground. They hardly ever reach a prompt conclusion. That is the reality inspite of repeated advice and admonitions from this Court and the High Courts. If a criminal case is unduly delayed that may itself be a good ground for going ahead with the disciplinary enquiry even where the disciplinary proceedings are held over at an earlier stage. The interests of administration and good government demand that these proceedings are concluded expeditiously. It most be remembered that interests of administration demand that undesirable elements are thrown out and any charge of misdemeanour is enquired into promptly. The disciplinary proceedings are meant not really to punish the guilty but to keep the administrative machinery unsullied by getting rid of bad elements. (Para 10)
The approach and the objective in the criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings is altogether distinct and different.In the disciplinary proceedings, the question is whether the respondent is guilty of such conduct as would merit his removal from service or a lesser punishment, as the case may be, whereas in the criminal proceedings the question is whether the offences registered a against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act (and the Indian Penal Code, in any) are established and, if established, what sentence should be imposed upon him.The standard of proof, the mode of enquiry and the rules governing the enquiry and trial in both the cases are entirely distinct and different. Staying of disciplinary proceedings pending criminal proceedings, to repeat, should not be a matter of course but a considered decision. Even if stayed at one stage, the decision may require reconsideration if the criminal case gets unduly delayed. (Para 13)
(2) This appeal is preferred against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur staying the departmental enquiry against the respondent till the conclusion of the criminal trial pending against him.
(3) The respondent is a member of the Indian Administrative Service belon- ging to the Rajasthan Cadre. He was working as Additional Collector, Development-Cum- Project Director, District Rural Development Agency(DRDA), Jaipur during the year 1989. He was transferred from the said post on 21.10.89, on 8.12.89 the successor to the respondent lodged a FIR(No.346 of 89) against the respondent in Police Station Bani Park, Jaipur inter alia alleging misappropriation of Public funds by the respondent to the tune Rs. 1.05 crores. The Anti-Corruption Department of the State of Rajasthan investigated into the said offence and found that the respondent was involved in the offence and accordingly registered FIR No. 10/90 dated 12.3.90. On 22.5.90, the respondent was placed under suspension. The respondent was arrested on 26.3.90 and remained in custody till 10th August, 1990.
(4) On 31.3.92, the State of Rajasthan requested the Government of India for grant of sanction for prosecuting the respondent under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On 9.9.92, the Government of India, while not granting the sanction for prosecution, advised the Government of Rajasthan to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the respondent. Accordingly, on 13.10.92 , the State Government issued the memo of charges accompanied by articles of charges. On 9.2.93, the respondent submitted his written statement (running into 90 pages) in reply to the charges served upon him. At our direction, the learned counsel for the respondent has filed a copy of the said written statement. It purports to be in response to the memo of charges dated 13.10.92 communicated to him. Though at the end, the res- pondent reserves his ``right to add new points when and if the documents as mentioned above are furnished to me or if the investigating agency furnish other documents of additional points not disclosed to me till now, the written statement is a detailed rebuttal of the charges framed against the respondent. The respondent, no doubt,says that since all the documents were not furnished to him, he proposes to file a fuller statement after receiving those documents but that does not mean that the respondent has not put forward his case in reply to the charges framed against him. Putting forward his case in reply to memo of charges cannot but mean putting forward his defence.
(5) On 13.4.93, the respondent filed O.A. No. 212 of 1993 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur challenging the various orders passed against him including the memo of charges.
On 15.5. 93 charge-sheet was filed in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur, against the respondent and cognizance there of taken by the learned C.J.M.
(6) At the instance of the respondent, the Central Administrative Tribunal issued an order on 4.8.93 staying the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent. The State of Rajasthan thereupon reinstated the respondent in service, revoking the order of suspension pending enquiry.The respondent amended has.O.A. requesting that the disciplinary enquiry against him be stayed pending the criminal trial .
(7) When the Original Application came up for final hearing, the only ground urged by the respondent was that the departmental proceedings be not allowed to go on so long as the criminal proceedings are pending against him. It was opposed by the State of Rajasthan stating inter alia that inasmuch as the respondent has fi- led a detailed written statement of defence on 9.2.93 9 ( in response to memo of charges framed against him) and because the respondent has disclosed all possible defences in the said written statement there is no occasion or warrant for staying the disciplinary proceedings .
