Honble JHA, CJ.–This special appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated August 4, 2005 dismissing the writ petition of the appellant. The appellant had filed the writ petition seeking direction upon the respondents to drop the departmental proceedings initiated against him during pendency of the criminal case. The facts of the case briefly are as follows:–

(2). During tenure of the appellant as Branch Manager of the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (in short `the Insurance Company) at Kishangarh Branch, a criminal case bearing FIR No. RC/JAI/2003/A/0004 under Sections 120-B, 409, 465, 467, 471 and 477-A IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) at Jaipur Branch against the appellant and others on March 7, 2003 and on November 15, 2003 charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and others. The case is presently pending in the Court of Special Judge, CBI Cases, Jaipur at the stage of framing of charges. Meanwhile, on March 15, 2005 a departmental proceeding was initiated against the appellant. On April 1, 2005 the charge-memo along with the statement of imputation of misconduct etc. was issued. The appellant made representation to keep the proceeding in abeyance during pendency of the criminal case. A legal notice was also served. The representation apparently did not find favour and on June 7, 2005 Smt. Jaya Balachandran, CDI, CVC, New Delhi was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Pursuant to letter of the appellant dated June 7, 2005, on July 4, 2005 the respondents appointed Shri Surjeet Singh, CDI, CVC, New Delhi as the Enquiry Officer in place of Smt. Jaya Balachandran. At this stage the appellant filed the writ petition seeking relief as indicated outset. The learned Single Judge noticed the grievance of the appellant to the effect that during pendency of the criminal case departmental proceedings cannot be initiated but disagreeing with the contention, observing that departmental proceedings can be initiated while criminal case is pending, dismissed the writ petition. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has come in appeal to the Division Bench.

(3). Shri Praveen Balwada appearing for the appellant submitted that departmental proceeding is based on self same facts as criminal case and, therefore, it would not be proper to permit the respondents to continue with the departmental proceeding till disposal of the criminal case. In support of the contention counsel placed reliance on Union of India & Ors. vs. Naman Singh Shekhawat & Anr., 2005(8) RDD 3332.

(4). The question as to whether a departmental proceeding can be held simultaneously with the criminal case or after acquittal of the delinquent in the criminal case is not res-integra. In Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. vs. Kushal Bhan, AIR 1960 SC 806, one of the earliest cases on the point, the Supreme Court observed that:–

``It is true that very often employers stay enquiries pending the decision of the criminal case of the criminal Trial Courts and that is fair; but we can not say that principles of natural justice require that an employer must wait for the decision at least of the criminal Trial Court before taking action against an employee.

Having observed thus, the Court added a caveat as under:–

``We may, however, add that if the case is of a grave nature or involves questions of fact or law, which are not simple, it would be advisable for the employer to await the decision of the Trial Court, so that the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced.

(5). In Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. vs. Workmen, AIR 1965 SC 155, the Supreme Court observed as under:–

``There is yet another point which remains to be considered. The Industrial Tribunal appears to have taken the view that since criminal proceedings had been started against Raghavan, the domestic enquiry should have been stayed pending the final disposal of the said criminal proceedings

Click Here to Read the rest of this document