ORDER

(As per Hon’ble Mr.B.V.Sudhakar, Administrative Member)

Through Video Conferencing:

2. The OA is filed in regard to simultaneous disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant, when a criminal case is being adjudicated in the competent criminal Court.

3. Brief facts are that the applicant while working as Senior Tax Assistant in the respondents organization, an FIR bearing the number RC No. 15 (A)/2017 was registered on 27.9.2017 by CBI against the applicant, based on a complaint made by Sri P.Krishna Murthy, complaining about demand of illegal gratification of Rs.30,000, to close a Tax Evasion case. Criminal Case no 3 of 2018 has been filed in the CBI Court Visakhapatnam. Based on the very same facts and circumstances, respondents have issued charge memo dated 27.2.2020. Aggrieved over the same, OA is filed.

4. The contentions of the applicant are that the charges in the criminal case and the departmental proceedings are one and the same. Applicant is from the lower rung of the respondents‟ organization and has no authority to close a tax evasion case. Complicated questions of facts and law are involved and defence revealed in the departmental case will adversely affect the outcome of the criminal case. Therefore as per law, disciplinary proceedings have to be stalled till the criminal case is finalized. The constitutional protection available to the applicant has been violated by the impugned disciplinary proceedings. On submitting a reply to the charge sheet, respondents have appointed an inquiry officer and the applicant requested the disciplinary authority for stay of the departmental proceedings vide his letter 7.10.2020, which was not conceded to on 15.10.2020 and directed to appear before the inquiry officer. Prosecution sanction was issued on 19.12.2017 whereas the charge memo was issued in Feb. 2020 after a lapse of nearly 2 ½ years, implying that there was no urgency to proceed with the disciplinary case. Taking support of the DOPT and CVC memos, cited by the respondents, is wrong. CVC memo cited is defacto in favour of the applicant. Criminal case is not progressing due to ongoing corona pandemic.Applicant relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Telangana in WP Nos. 10451 & 10471 of 2020 to further his cause. Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution have been violated.

5. Respondents while confirming facts in regard to filing of the Criminal Case 3/2018 in the CBI Court for demanding illegal gratification of Rs.30,000/- in a tax evasion case, submit that the disciplinary proceedings issued on 27.2.2020 and the criminal case referred to are different. There is no bar to conduct disciplinary case when criminal case is pending. Action was taken in consonance with the instructions contained in DOPT memos dated 1.8.2007, 21.7.2016 and CVC circular dated 31.7.2018. When it is a case of illegal gratification, the facts and circumstances are bound to be the same. The claim of the applicant that his defence is at risk in the criminal trial because of the disciplinary proceedings has no merit. There was delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings as the applicant was transferred and, it took some time to appoint the I.O. and P.O. The delay per se cannot be the reason to ward off the proceedings. There are no complex questions of facts and law involved. Applicant is given all opportunities to defend himself in the disciplinary proceedings wherein, Inquiry officer/ Presenting Officer were appointed on 22.7.2020 and hence, there is no violation of the constitutional protections available to him. Therefore, Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution have not been violated. In the case decided by the Hon‟ble High Court of Telangana in WP Nos.10451 & 10471 of 2020, complicated questions of facts and law are involved and not in the instant case. Respondents cited the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in B.K. Meena case in support of their contentions.

6. Heard both the counsel and perused the pleadings