http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 12

PETITIONER:

CAPT.M. PAUL ANTHONY ..

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

BHARAT GOLD MINES LTD. & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/03/1999

BENCH:

S. Saghir Ahmad, & V N Khare.

JUDGMENT:

S.

SAGHIR AHMAD, J.

Leave granted.

Whether departmental proceedings and proceedings in a

criminal case launched on the basis of the same set of facts

can be continued simultaneously is a question which crops up

perennially in service matters and has once again arisen in

this case in the following cirucmstances.

Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. (Respondent No. 1) is a Govt.

undertaking at Kolar Gold Fields in Karnataka, where the

appellant was appointed as a Security Officer on 31.10.1983.

On 2nd of June, 1985, a raid was conducted by the

Superintendent of Police at the house of the appellant from

where a mining sponge gold ball weighing 4.5 grams and 1276

grams of ’gold bearing sand’ were recovered. Thereafter, on

the same day, a First Information Report was lodged at the

Police Station and a criminal case was registered against

the appellant, who was placed under suspension on 3.6.1985.

The next day, namely, on 4th of June, 1985, a charge-sheet

was issued proposing a regular departmental inquiry with

regard to the recovery of the above articles from his house.

On 11th of June, 1985, the appellant made a representation

to the Disciplinary Authority denying the allegations made

against him in the charge sheet and pleaded that the entire

episode was a concoction. He prayed that the departmental

proceedings initiated against him may be dropped or may, in

the alternative, be postponed till the conclusion of the

criminal proceedings against him on the basis of the First

Information Report lodged against him at the Police Station

on 2.6.1985. The representation was rejected on 19.6.1985

and the appellant was informed that the disciplinary

proceedings would be held against him on 1.7.1985.

In the meantime, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.

10842 of 1985 in the Karnataka High Court for a direction to

restrain the respondents from proceeding with the

disciplinary inquiry till the conclusion of the criminal

case as the appellant’s defence was likely to be prejudiced.

This Writ Petition was disposed of by the High Court on

19.8.1985 and a direction was issued to the respondents to

consider and dispose of the appellant’s appeal filed against

the order of suspension but liberty was given to the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 12

respondents to defer the disciplinary proceedings if it was

found expedient so to do. The respondents did not defer the

departmental proceedings and continued the proceedings which

the appellant could not attend on account of his ill-health

and financial difficulties which compelled him to shift to

his home-town in Kerala. The respondents were informed by a

number of letters supported by medical certificates about

his illness with a request for staying the departmental

proceedings and await the result of the criminal case. But

the Inquiry Officer rejected the request and recorded his

findings on 10.5.1986 holding the appellant guilty. These

findings were accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and by

order dated 7th June 1986, the appellant was dismissed from

service.

On 3rd of February, 1987, judgment in the criminal

case was pronounced and the appellant was acquitted with the

categorical findings that the prosecution had failed to

establish its case. This judgment was communicated by the

appellant to the respondents on 12.2.1987 with a request

that he may be reinstated, but respondents, by their letter

dated 3.3.1987, rejected the request on the ground that the

appellant had already been dismissed from service on the

completion of the departmental inquiry which was conducted

independently of the crimina