ORAL JUDGMENT

Date: 19-03-2024

1. The present writ petition has been filed for directing the respondents to stay the ongoing departmental proceeding till final disposal of a criminal case, bearing Buddha Colony P.S.

Case No. 628 of 2022, dated 07.12.2022.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner by issuance of a chargesheet dated 29.03.2023, which is based on the allegations levelled in the aforesaid criminal case. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the departmental proceeding as also the criminal proceeding are based on same and similar set of facts, hence it would be in the interest of justice that the departmental proceeding in question is stayed till conclusion of the criminal proceeding. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment dated 24.12.2021, passed by this Court in CWJC No.1936 of 2021 (Shashi Bhushan Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.), reported in 2022 (2) BLJ 100. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to paragraph no.6 of the said judgment, rendered in the case of Shashi Bhushan Kumar (Supra), which is reproduced herein below:-

“6. Without going into the details of all the judgments referred to herein above by me, it would suffice to reproduce paragraph nos. 13 to 18 and 27 of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Neelam Nag (supra) herein below:-

“13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. The only question that arises for consideration is no more res integra. It is well settled that there is no legal bar to the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings & criminal trial simultaneously. However, no straitjacket formula can be spelt out and the Court has to keep in mind the broad approach to be adopted in such matters on case-to-case basis. The contour of the approach to be adopted by the Court has been delineated in a series of decisions.

14. This Court in Karnataka SRTC v. M.G. Vittal Rao [Karnataka SRTC v. M.G. Vittal Rao, (2012) 1 SCC 442] has summed up the same in the following words:

(i) There is no legal bar for both the proceedings to go on simultaneously.

(ii) The only valid ground for claiming that the disciplinary proceedings may be stayed would be to ensure that the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced. But even such grounds would be available only in cases involving complex questions of facts or law.

(iii) Such defence ought not to be permitted to unnecessarily delay the departmental proceedings. The interest of the delinquent officer as well as the employer clearly lies in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.

(iv) Departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously to the criminal trial, except where both the proceedings are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common.

(emphasis supplied)

15. The recent decision relied on by the appellant in Stanzen [Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. v. Girish V., (2014) 3 SCC 636], has adverted to the relevant decisions [Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Sarvesh Berry, (2005) 10 SCC 471; Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., (1999) 3 SCC 679; A.P. SRTC v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya, (1997) 2 SCC 699 and State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena, (1996) 6 SCC 417] including M.G. Vittal Rao [Karnataka SRTC v. M.G. Vittal Rao, (2012) 1 SCC 442]. After adverting to those decisions, in para 16, this Court opined as under:

“16. Suffice it to say that while there is no legal bar to the holding of the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal trial simultaneously, stay of disciplinary proceedings may be an advisable course in cases where the criminal charge against the employee is grave and continuance of the disciplinary proceedings is likely to prejudice their defence before the criminal court. Gravity of the charge is, however, not by itself enough to determine the question unless the charge involves