The Tribunal concluded that simultaneous criminal and departmental proceedings can proceed only if they do not prejudice the applicant's defense, deferring the latter pending the conclusion of the former.

ORDER

Per: Hon’ble Shri Santosh Mehra ……Member(A)

Through this OA, the applicant has sought the following reliefs:

a. Defer the Departmental Proceeding initiated vide Article 1 of the Articles of Charges of the Memorandum No.C- 18012/1/2021/VIG/Pt 1/2196 Dated 30.09.2024 (Annexure A- 1) till the completion of Prosecution evidence in the Criminal Case pending before the CBI Court.

b. This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to pass any order/direction/relief that it deems fit.

2. The facts in a nutshell are as follows

While the applicant was working as Enforcement Officer/Accounts Officer and posted as EO to DO, Tirupur, the CBI conducted a surprise check in his office, in which Rs. 4 lakh cash was found. Accordingly, the CBI registered a case in RC0322021A0005 on 24.03.2021 against the applicant and two other persons. Subsequently, the CBI filed the charge sheet against him vide CC No.1/2022, and the case is pending trial. Simultaneously, disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against the applicant vide Memo No. C-18012/1/2021/VIG/Pt 1/2196 dated 30.09.2024. The applicant denied the charges in his reply dated 30.10.2024 and requested the Disciplinary Authority to stay the disciplinary proceedings in respect of Article 1 of the Charge memo pending recording of evidence of Prosecution Witnesses during the trial. Instead of sending a reply to the applicant, the Disciplinary Authority appointed the Inquiring Authority and the Presenting Officer and went ahead with the inquiry. Hence, the applicant has approached this Bench through this OA for relief.

3.(i) According to the Counsel for applicant, the applicant, who joined EPFO on 04.11.1999 as Lower Division Clerk, is presently working as Accounts Officer at EPFO Regional Office Peenya, Bangalore. He was served a Charge Memo vide No. C-18012/1/2021/VIG Pt 1/2196 dated 30.09.2024 under Rule 10 of the EPF Staff (CCA) Rules, 1971 for alleged misconduct. The Article 1 (Annexure A-1) of the same reads as follows:

“STATEMENT OF ARTICLES OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST SMT G. LOGANAYAKI, THE THEN EO, DO, TIRUPPUR

ARTICLE-I

WHEREAS following the surprise check conducted by CBI, ACB, Chennai along with the independent witnesses on 24.03.2021 at District P.F. Office, Tiruppur located at No. 497, 1st floor, M/s Muthusamy & Brothers Industrial Complex, Palladam Road, Tiruppur-641604 Smt G Loganayaki EO was arrested by the CBI for allegedly demanding and accepting illegal gratification of ₹4,00,000 from Shri KS Suresh, Proprietor of M/s Raghavi Associates and Shri Ramesh Babu, Executive, of M/s Raghavi Associates Chennai for settlement of P.F. related issues in respect of M/s KVR Builders CB/CBE/1084378 and M/s Sivajothi Constructions CB/CBE/1084653 bringing disrepute to the Organization and tarnishing the image of the organization.

Thus, Smt. G. Loganayaki, EO failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a government servant and thereby violated Rule 3(1)(i), 3(1)(iii) & 3(1) (vi) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, which are mutatis mutandis applicable to the employees of CBT, EPF/EPFO in terms of Regulations 18 and 22 of the EPF (Officers and Employees' Conditions of Services) Regulations, 2008 as amended from time to time.”

(ii) In response to the Memorandum of charges, the applicant submitted a detailed reply on 30.10.2024 denying the charges. The Counsel for Applicant points out that the above mentioned charge in Article 1 and the Statement of imputations on which the Article of Charge is framed as per Annexure A-1 rely exclusively on the same set of documents and witnesses on which the trial of the applicant is presently going on as per the charge sheet filed by the CBI.

(iii) In this regard, the Counsel for Applicant has invited our attention to the Comparative Table of the documents and