Advocates:
['Mrs Shima Banik Deb', '', 'Mr SUBRATA SARKAR', 'K D SINGHA', 'PIYALI CHAKRABORTY', 'Ms Monilisha Pal', 'Sr GA']

Page 1 of 4

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA

AGARTALA

W.P. (C) No.325/2021

For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. K.D. Singha, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Sarma, Addl. GA.

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI

Order

29/04/2021.

Petitioner is Enrolled Follower (Cook) working in Tripura State

Rifles. On 27.08.2020, a departmental charge sheet was served on him.

This charge sheet contained one charge namely, that at the time of his

entry in service, the petitioner had furnished a fake/forged SC certificate

for the vacancy of Enrolled Follower (Cook) in 8^th Bn. of TSR. He had

thereby committed misconduct and he was liable to be punished under

Section 12(1) of Tripura State Rifles Act, 1983.

On 03.08.2020, an FIR was also lodged before Khowai Police

Station alleging that the petitioner had secured employment in TSR

claiming to be a SC candidate by forging his caste certificate.

The petitioner, therefore, requests that the departmental inquiry may

be stayed till the criminal case is over. Counsel for the petitioner argued

that the departmental as well as criminal proceedings arise out of the same

incident, contain the same allegations and rely on same set of documents

Page 2 of 4

and witnesses. The departmental inquiry should therefore be stayed till the

criminal trial is over. In support of his contentions, counsel relied on

following decisions:

(i)

In case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines

Ltd. and another, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 67.

(ii)

In case of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited vs. Girish

V. and others, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 636.

(iii) In case of Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road

Transport Corporation vs. M.G. Vittal Rao, reported in

(2012) 1 SCC 442.

(iv)

In case of State Bank of India and others vs. Neelam Nag

and another, reported in (2016) 9 SCC 491.

I do not think that the petitioner has made out any ground for stay of

the departmental proceeding still criminal case is over. On several

occasions Supreme Court has held that departmental proceedings and

criminal case operate in different fields and proceed on the basis of entirely

different requirements of nature of proof. The purpose of a criminal case is

to punish the guilty and that departmental inquiry is to award punishment

in case a Government servant is found to have committed misconduct. It is

reiterated that unless the case involves grave charges and extremely

complicated facts and law, the departmental inquiry should not be stayed

pending a criminal trial even though the same may arise out of the same

Page 3 of 4

incident. It is stressed that there is no bar in the law in the departmental

proceedings continuing pending a criminal trial. A reference in this respect

can be made to the decisions of the Supreme Court in case of Depot

Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs. Mohd.

Yousuf Miya, etc. reported in AIR 1997 SC 2232, in case of State of

Rajasthan vs. B.K. Meena and others, reported in AIR 1997 SC 13, in

case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another,

reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679, in case of Kendriya Vidyalaa Sangathan

and others vs. T. Srinivas, reported in 2004 AIR SCW 4558, in case of

Delhi Transport Corporation vs. Sardar Singh, reported in 2004 AIR

SCW 4622 and in case of State Bank of India and others vs. Neelam Nag

and another, reported in (2016) 9 SCC 491.

The common thread running through all these judgments as also

those cited by the counsel for the petitioner is that there is no bar on

departmental proceedings continuing when criminal trial is pending. Only

when it is shown that the case involves grave charges and complicated

questions of facts and law, the Court may suspend a departmental

proceeding till criminal trial is over.

However, in the present case, none of these factors are present. The

allegation against the petitioner in the departmental inqu