DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PENDING CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST AN EMPLOYEE

The purpose underlying disciplinary proceedings is distinctly different from the purpose behind prosecution of offenders for commission of offences by them.  While criminal prosecution for an offence is launched for violation of a duty that the offender owes to the society, disciplinary proceeding is aimed at maintaining discipline and efficiency in service.  The difference in the standard of proof and the application of the rules of evidence to one and inapplicability to the other is in different spheres and are intended to serve distinctly different purposes.   

In ‘Paul Anthony V. Bharat Gold Mines Limited’ – 1999 (3) TMI 625 - Supreme Court of India the Supreme Court identified the following broad principles-

1. Departmental proceedings and  proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately;
2. If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case;
3.  Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in the case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge sheet;
4. The factors mentioned at (i) and (ii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the Departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed;
5. If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honor may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, administration may get rid of him at the earliest.

For the question whether disciplinary proceedings should be stayed pending a criminal charge was examined by the Supreme Court in ‘HPCL V.  Sarvesh Berry’ – 2004 (12) TMI 661 - Supreme Court of India held that a crime is an act of commission in violation of law or omission of public duty.   The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service.   It would be therefore expedient and completed as expeditiously as possible.  It is not, therefore, desirable to lay down any guidelines as inflexible rules in which the departmental proceedings may or may not be stayed pending trial in criminal case against the delinquent officer.   Each case requires to be considered in the backdrop of its own facts and circumstances. 

The Supreme Court in‘Karnataka State Transport Corporation V. M.G. Vittal Rao’ – 2011 (11) TMI 419 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA the Supreme Court summed up the procedure in this regard-

• There is no legal bar for both proceedings to go on simultaneously;
• 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 ground would be available only in cases involving complex questions of facts and law;
• Such defence ought not to be permitted to unnecessarily delay the disciplinary proceedings.   The interest of the delinquent official as well as the employer clearly lies in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings;
• 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.

In ‘Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited V/ Girish V and others’ – 2014 (3) TMI 740 - SUPREME COURT the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of automobile parts.   The respondents are workmen in the company of the appellant.  The employment is governed under Industrial Employees (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.  On 19.03.2011 at about 10.30 p.m., the respondents with the help of other trade union functionaries stage managed an accident making it appear as if an employee had slipped and fallen in the press area.  The case of the appellant is that the said employee had not sustained any injury, he was sent to the hospital in the ambulance of the appellant company and that instead of resuming the work after the alleged incident, the respondent stopped the production activity and started abusing their superiors, damaged property of the company and even assaulted senior managerial personnel.   These acts of indiscipline created an atmosphere of fear and tension in the factory and brought the production activity to a grinding halt.  The wounded officers were unable to report for about 15 days on account of assault on them.

The competent authority placed the respondents under suspension as the provisions contained in the Standing order.  Charge sheets were issued to them.   The explanation given by the respondents was found unsatisfactory, an enquiry was initiated and Inquiry Officers were appointed to inquire into the allegations framed against the respondents.  The Presenting Officers have examined one witness in each one of the enquiries.   Besides one of the employees filed a complaint in the police station under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 356, 427, 504, 506, 114 read with Section 149 of IPC.  A chare sheet was filed and investigation is pending.   The respondents are accused of committing the above said offences.

While the criminal case and disciplinary enquiry were pending the respondents filed a suit in which they prayed for a permanent injunction against the appellant and the Inquiry Officers restraining them from proceeding with the enquiry pending conclusion of the criminal case.  The court stayed the domestic enquiry pending the criminal case disposal.   The appellant filed a writ petition against the said order before the High Court.  The High Court upheld the order of the lower court.   Hence the appellant filed this present appeal.

The High Court held 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 grace and continuance of the disciplinary proceedings is likely to prejudice their defense before the criminal court.   In this case the charges leveled against the respondents are not ordinarily offences being punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years besides fine.  This case did not involve any complicated questions of law and fact to call for an unconditional and complete stay of the disciplinary proceedings pending conclusion of the trial.   However the Court held that the criminal court may conclude its proceedings within one year and directed the respondents to co-operate with the court to finish the case within the time frame.  If the trial is not completed within one year despite the steps taken by the trial court the disciplinary proceeding shall be resumed and concluded by the Inquiry Officers. The stay granted will be vacated automatically on the expiry of one year from the date of the order of High Court.

Thus gravity of charges in a criminal case is not the deciding factor to determine the questions unless the charge involves complicated question of law and fact.  The Court examining the questions will keep in mind those criminal trials get prolonged indefinitely especially where the number of accused arraigned for trial is large.  The Court therefore will draw a balance between the need for a fair trial to the accused on the one hand and the competing demand for the expeditious conclusion of the ongoing disciplinary proceedings on the other.