The main legal point established in the judgment is that the pendency of a criminal case does not automatically warrant the deferment of departmental proceedings, and the departmental proceedings should not be unduly delayed.

S. MANIKUMAR, J.

1. The above writ appeal is filed against the order made in W.P. No.22998 of 2006 dated 19. 2006.

2. We are not in agreement with the judgment made by the writ Court in directing the respondents to defer the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case for the following reasons.

3. Legal position has been made clear by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision in State Bank of India and Others v. R.B. Sharma AIR 2004 SC 4144: (2004) 7 SCC 27: (2005) 1 MLJ 36: 2004–III–LLJ-528. In paragraph 8, the Supreme Court held as follows:

“8. The purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution are two different and distinct aspects. Criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of a duty the offender owes to the society, or for breach of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. So crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. It would, therefore, be expedient that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible. It is not, therefore, desirable to lay down any guidelines as inflexible rules in which the departmental proceedings may or may not be stayed pending trial in criminal case against the delinquent officer. Each case requires to be considered in the backdrop of its own facts and circumstances. There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental enquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the charge in the criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law. Offence generally implies infringement of public duty, as distinguished from mere private rights punishable under criminal law. When trial for criminal offence is conducted it should be in accordance with proof of the offence as per the evidence defined under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short “the Evidence Act”). Converse is the case of departmental enquiry. The enquiry in a departmental proceeding relates to conduct or breach of duty of the delinquent officer, to punish him for his misconduct defined under the relevant statutory rules or law. That the strict standard of proof or applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded is a settled legal position. Under these circumstances, what is required to be seen is whether the departmental enquiry would seriously prejudice the delinquent in his defence at the trial in a criminal case. It is always a question of fact to be considered in each case depending on its own facts and circumstances.”

4. The above said principle has been reiterated in subsequent decision in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Others V. Sarvesh Berry AIR 2005 SC 1406: (2005) 10 SCC 471: 2005–I-LLJ-588.

5. Short facts leading to this appeal are as follows:

The respondent was alleged to have involved in a case of misappropriation of Board’s money, by tampering of documents and First Information Report was registered against him on 30.4.2005 under Sections 409, 477(A) and 420 IPC in Crime No.325 of 2005, on the file of the Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai-8. While the said criminal case was pending, the first appellant initiated disciplinary proceedings against him and charges were framed on 112. 2005, under the Tamil Nadu Electricity board Clerical Employees Standing Order, for the alleged misappropriation to the tune of Rs. 38,39,087/- by tampering with the Board’s records. Thiru. G. Nageswara Rao, Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity board Chennai was appointed as Enquiry Officer, to enquire into the charges. After participating in the department enquiry, the respondent has sought for a writ of mandamus, refraining the appellants to proceed with the charge memo, dated 112. 2005, till the outcome of the criminal case pending in Crime No.325 of 2005 on the file of the Central Crime Branch, Egmore Ch