The burden is on the employee to show that the charges in both disciplinary and criminal proceedings are the same, involve complicated questions of fact and law, and that the defense has not been disclosed. The court emphasized the need for expeditious conclusion of disciplinary proceedings, especially in cases involving misappropriation of public money.

ORDER :

P.Naveen Rao, J.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri M.Venkanna and learned Assistant Solicitor General for respondents.

2. Petitioner is a Postal Assistant in the Department of Posts, Government of India. While he was working in Nandipet, Sub-Post Office (for short S.O.), he was deputed to Makloor S.O to work as Sub-Post Master (for short, ‘SPM’). Having received complaints of illegalities in the Makloor S.O., fact finding enquiry was conducted. Based on the findings in the said enquiry, disciplinary action was initiated against petitioner. He was placed under suspension on 29.6.2019. On 1.9.2019 complaint was also lodged in Makloor Police Station against petitioner alleging that there was shortage of cash of Rs. 7,70,535/- in S.O cash balance as on 29.6.2019. The complaint was registered as Crime No.139 of 2019. On 18.9.2019 his suspension was revoked.

3. He was served with charge memo dated 9.9.2019. The charge memo contains six articles of charges. Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charges. It appears, so far few sittings were held. Petitioner submitted representation to defer departmental proceedings, till the criminal proceedings are concluded. As his request to defer departmental proceedings was not acceded to by the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority, petitioner filed O.A.No.891 of 2020 in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, praying to direct respondents to hold up departmental proceedings.

4. Police concluded the investigation and filed charge sheet. The learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nizamabad took cognizance of offence. The petitioner is placed on trial in CC No.641 of 2021. He is charged under Sections 403 and 409 of IPC. He is the sole accused. Section 403 of IPC is on dishonest misappropriation of movable property and Section 409 of IPC is on breach of trust by public servant. If held guilty of charge under Section 403 IPC the accused may be sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a term of two years or with fine or both. If convicted of the offence under Section 409 IPC, the accused may be sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life or for ten years and in addition, fine can also be imposed.

5. By order dated 9.2.2022 the Tribunal dismissed the O.A. Hence, this writ petition.

6. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Solicitor General for respondents.

7. The only issue for consideration is whether petitioner is entitled to seek to defer Article-I when petitioner is facing trial on same charge in the Criminal Court.

8. Whenever allegations of misconduct are made against an employee, employer is competent to take disciplinary action and punish him on proven misconduct. Such punishment can vary from removal/dismissal from service to censure. Before acting against an employee on the alleged misconduct, the employer is required to follow due procedure. The gravamen of allegation in disciplinary proceedings may also attract penal provisions which may entail launch of prosecution by police. In such a case, the employee would be facing disciplinary action under the employer and criminal prosecution. Thus, on same allegation, a person who is also an employee of an organisation can face two pronged action, disciplinary action by employer and criminal proceedings by the State.

9. Relationship between employer and employee is one of contract and regulated by terms of contract and/or Rules/Regulations/ Byelaws. The continuation in employment is based on trust and confidence of employer. A proven misconduct may result in dismissal/ removal from service.

10. On the contrary, penal law is structured on the concept that when a person commits crime, it may be against a person but would be a crime against the society. Therefore, even if a crime is committed in a private place or within the four corners of employment, it is still a crime against the society and State prosecutes him.

11. In the disciplinary action, misconduct can be established b