Departmental proceedings can continue alongside criminal proceedings unless they are likely to prejudice the defense in the criminal trial.

ORDER :

Ananda Sen, J.

This Intra Court Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, preferred by the Union of India and others (respondents in writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 5039 of 2023), is directed against the judgment dated 06.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 5039 of 2023, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition by quashing the chargesheet dated 31.01.2023 and the order of pre-mature retirement dated 05.12.2023, of the writ petitioner. Further, a direction was given in the impugned order to restore the services of the writ petitioner with all consequential benefits including continuity in service. The learned Single Judge directed that the intervening period be regularized as leave due.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT-UNION OF INDIA

2. Learned A.S.G.I. appearing on behalf of the appellants-Union of India submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in allowing the writ petition. The writ petitioner (respondent in this Letters Patent Appeal) is involved in a case instituted under the Prevention of Corruption Act being RC 13(A) of 2017 registered for offences under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for amassing disproportionate assets during the check period from 1998 to 2013. Central Vigilance Commission recommended sanction for prosecution and also for initiating a major penalty proceeding. The President of India, in terms of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, granted sanction for prosecution against the petitioner and chargesheet was submitted against him. Special Judge, C.B.I. had taken cognizance of the offence on 22.07.2022. A Departmental Proceeding was also initiated and an Enquiry Officer was appointed. Inspite of extension of time, the writ petitioner did not file his written statement in defence. The writ petitioner, on 14.01.2022 filed a representation, but as the written submission was not filed, an Enquiry Officer to conduct the Departmental Proceeding was appointed. As per the learned A.S.G.I., learned Single Judge committed illegality while quashing the Departmental Proceeding and the Departmental Chargesheet observing that the representation dated 14.01.2022 was not considered and appointment of Enquiry Officer amounts to non-application of mind. As per him, the Departmental Proceeding could not have been quashed. The finding of the learned Single Judge to the effect that illegality committed by the writ petitioner in amassing disproportionate assets is subject matter of criminal proceeding and can only be adjudged by a Court, as such Departmental Proceeding cannot be initiated, is without a proper backing of law. There is no element of bias in this case. There is no legal obligation on the part of the Railway Board to dispose of the representation of the writ petitioner, which was filed on 14.01.2022. This fact has been lost sight of by the learned Single Judge. Further, the learned Single Judge failed to take into consideration that representation dated 14.01.2022 has got no relation with the allegation made in the Departmental Proceeding. The Departmental Proceeding was initiated on the ground of not giving intimation of acquisition of properties, which is in violation of Rule 9(15) of the Railway Conduct Rule, whereas the criminal proceeding was initiated for amassing Disproportionate Assets under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Since both the proceedings operate in different fields, the Departmental Proceeding could not have been quashed. The finding that there is a delay in initiating the Departmental Proceeding does not warrant quashing of the charge. Further, it was argued that the premature retirement is not a punishment. The writ petitioner along with several others were considered in terms of Rule 1802(a) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code and thereafter a decision was taken to give compulsory retirement to the writ petitioner on the basis of mate