SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Mad) 1186

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. DINAKARAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR
G.Nagarajan - Appellant
Versus
The Union of India rep.by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No.11763 of 2006
Decided On : 26 April 2006

Advocates Appeared:For the Petitioner:Ms. Rathina Ashokan, Advocate. For the Respondent: ------

There is no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental enquiry and trial of criminal case.

Headnote:Service Law - Departmental Enquiry- There is no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental enquiry and trial of criminal case, unless charge in criminal case is of a grave nature, involving complicated questions of fact and law - Department is not only bound to take disciplinary action against delinquent, but also to keep administrative machinery unsullied by getting rid of bad elements - Petition dismissed.

       

Judgment :-

(Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the relief as stated therein.)

P.D. Dinakaran, J.

The writ petition is directed against the order dated 14.3.2006 made in O.A.No.791 of 2005 on the file of the third respondent dismissing the said O.A. and refusing to stay the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner vide memorandum dated 1.9.2005, till the conclusion of the criminal case pending against the petitioner in C.C.No.3 of 2005 on the file of Principal Special Judge for CBI cases, for the offence punishable under Section 120-B, IPC read with Section 7, 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the "PC Act").

2.1. In brief, the petitioner was working as Superintendent, Customs, Tirupur, on deputation by the Central Excise Department. A trap was decided to be laid on the petitioner on 5.7.2004 based on a complaint lodged by one Selvaraj. The conversation between the said Selvaraj and the petitioner reveals that the petitioner demanded illegal gratification of Rs.25,000/- from Selvaraj for clearing export consignment made under shipping bill bearing serial No.14624 dated 26.6.2004. Accordingly, the trap was executed and the petitioner was trapped. A criminal case was initiated in C.C.No.3 of 2005 for the offences referred to above.

2.2. Pending the above criminal case, the first respondent also initiated departmental proceedings against the petitioner for having committed a gross misconduct and for the failure to discharge the duties of a public servant on 5.7.2004 in connection with the clearance of export consignment, in contravention of Rule 3(1)(i)(ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

3. The core contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before the Tribunal as well as before this Court is that if the departmental proceedings is permitted to be proceeded, he would be compelled to disclose his evidence in the departmental enquiry and the same would affect the defence in the trial and also cause prejudice.

4.1. The Tribunal, in its well considered judgment dated 14.3.2006, has observed that even though both the criminal case and the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner referred to above arise out of the same set of facts, the charge in the criminal case pending before the criminal court is for the offences punishable under Section 120-B, IPC read with Section 7, 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, whereas the allegation alleged in the departmental proceedings is with regard to the contravention of Rule 3(1)(i)(ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Thus, while the criminal case is with reference to the demand of illegal gratification and acceptance of the same, the departmental proceedings was initiated for the alleged misconduct on the part of the petitioner, viz. failure to discharge his duties to the utmost integrity and for having committed an act of unbecoming of a Government servant.

4.2. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner made an attempt to elaborate his contention in this regard, in our considered opinion, it may not be proper for us to go into those allegations which would otherwise affect the departmental proceedings and also cause prejudice to the petitioner himself.

4.3. In the circumstances, suffice it to observe that we are satisfied with the reasons that weighed the Tribunal in its order dated 14.3.2006, refusing to grant stay of the recovery proceedings which are based on the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the following decisions:

(a) In STATE OF RAJASTAN v. B.K.MEENA & ORS. (1996 SCC (l&s) 1455), it is held as follows:

"There is yet another reason. 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, w























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top