Advocates:
MADHU SIKRID. MAHESH BABU

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 4

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 7980 of 2004

PETITIONER:

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Ors.

RESPONDENT:

Sarvesh Berry

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/12/2004

BENCH:

ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

(Arising Out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 24560 of 2003)

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

Leave granted.

Appellants calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by

a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which set aside the

judgment of the learned Single Judge and directed that departmental

proceedings were not to be continued until conclusion of criminal

charge.

Background facts in a nutshell are as under:

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as

the ’employer’) is a Government of India enterprise.

Officials of the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short the

’CBI’) raided the house of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as

the ’employee’) on 13.3.1998 and found that he was in possession of

assets disproportionate to his known sources of income and consequently

a case was registered on 5.5.1998. After completion of investigation

charge sheet was filed. In the meantime departmental proceedings were

initiated against the respondent and charge sheet was issued. The

employee filed a writ petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court

taking the stand that departmental proceedings should be stayed till

completion of the criminal case. It was specifically stated that once

sanction has been granted to launch criminal prosecution nothing

further warrants initiation and continuance of departmental proceedings

as the issues involved in both the departmental inquiry and the

criminal case are identical. The appellants filed counter affidavit

stating that raid was conducted in the year 1988 and after completion

of investigation, CBI requested the employer-appellant no.1 to sanction

prosecution on 21.12.2000 and on 19.6.2001 sanction has been accorded

to prosecute the employee for the criminal charges. Though CBI had

filed the charge sheet there was no noticeable progress for four years.

Employer initiated the disciplinary proceedings on the ground that

continuation of the employee in service of the employer-Corporation

would not be in the public interest. Learned Single Judge dismissed the

writ petition holding that there is no legal bar on departmental

proceedings and criminal case continuing simultaneously even though

they are based on identical or similar set of facts. Reference was made

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 4

to a decision of this Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold

Mines Ltd. and Anr. (1999 (3) SCC 679). Matter was carried in appeal

by the employee before the Division Bench of the High Court in writ

appeal and by the impugned judgment the High Court held that there were

3 charges indicated in the charge sheet. The first related to

possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income

and the other two related to misconduct in (a) not filing correct

property returns and/or (b) not filing return at all for some years as

required under Rule 13(1)(c) of the Hindustan Petroleum Management

Employees Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1976 (in short the

’Rules’). The third charge related to failure of the respondent-

employee to file property returns for the years 1991-92, 1994-95, 1995-

96, 1996-97 and 1997-98. The High Court stated that though the charges

2 and 3 related to non-disclosure or non-submission of property returns

they are relatable to the first charge relating to possession of assets

disproportionate to the known sources of income. It would not be safe

to permit the appellants to continue the departmental proceedings till

completion of criminal case. However, an opportunity was given to take

steps for early disposal.

In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appe