2022 (7) TMI 37 - HC - Indian Laws

Writ petition dismissed, departmental proceedings continue despite criminal case

Baldev Singh Sandhu Versus Union of India and others

The court dismissed the writ petition, ruling that the departmental proceedings should not be stayed despite the pending criminal prosecution. The court ... Departmental inquiry proceedings against the Commissioner of Income Tax - allegation of corruption - assets have grown grossly disproportionate to his known sources of income - seeking stay on the ground that, petitioner was being prosecuted on the criminal side and a charge-sheet had been framed under various provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act - HELD THAT:- It is settled principle that no hard and fast rule is applicable that the departmental proceedings have to be stayed at the instance of the employee at the asking. Due regard has to be taken to the fact that departmental proceedings cannot always be delayed, which in the present case have already lingered for over a decade - In the present case even though there were directions issued by the Tribunal vide order dated 28.10.2014 (Annexure A-8) at the instance of the petitioner himself that the inquiry proceedings would be concluded expeditiously, the same have not been concluded. The Tribunal has noticed that various inquiry officers have changed and it is a matter of fact that the petitioner also retired on 30.09.2015 and, therefore, at this stage the threat as such of dismissal will no longer loom over him. It is to be seen that many times departmental proceedings are sought to be stayed on this ground, if the same are conducted expeditiously, which might result in dismissal of the employee, whereas on criminal side he might get the benefit of acquittal on the same set of allegations. A comparison of the charge-sheet issued on the departmental side and the charge framed by the criminal Court would go on to show that they operate within a different ambit regarding the non-disclosure of the properties which had been purchased without obtaining prior permission, which is nothing to do with the factum of the prosecution on the criminal side. Similarly, the charge of maintaining absolute integrity in the duty and had acting in a manner unbecoming of public servants as contravened the provisions of service rules and nothing is interconnected with criminal proceedings and, therefore, the departmental proceedings are operating within a different framework. It is also noticed that the delay which has occurred in the present case is on account of large number of witnesses which had been arrayed by the CBI. Therefore, it is opined that no such benefit is liable to be granted for staying the proceedings as asked for, since the matter has already lingered for the last over a decade and the Tribunal has rightly directed the monitoring of the said case, so that it can be concluded at the earliest. In KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN & ORS. VERSUS T. SRINIVAS [2004 (8) TMI 682 - SUPREME COURT], the High Court had upheld the order of the Tribunal staying the departmental proceedings on the ground that the charge was inter-connected. The Apex Court held that the seriousness of the charge which pertained to acceptance of illegal gratification and the desirability of continuing the appellant in service when he was guilty of such conduct, once the mode of enquiry and the rules governing the enquiry and trial in both the cases are distinct, would not justify in staying of the proceedings. It was, accordingly, held that the stay of disciplinary proceedings is not must in every case. Keeping in mind the cumulative weightage of the precedents which are against the petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that keeping in view the allegations levelled against him, which go deep into the misconduct of the public servant, it would not be appropriate to stay the departmental proceedings. The fact that on an earlier occasion the petitioner himself was keen that the same should be conducted within a time bound frame is also being kept in mind. The petitioner, thus, cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold at his own convenience. Petition dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Whether the departmental proceedings against the petitioner should be stayed due to pending criminal prosecution.2. Compliance with the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 regarding the timeline for inquiry proceedings.3. The impact of the petitioner’s retirement on the departmental proceedings.4. The relationship between the charges in the departmental and criminal proceedings.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the departmental proceedings against the petitioner should be stayed due to pending criminal prosecution:The petitioner argued that the departmental proceedings should be stayed, citing potential prejudice to his defense in the criminal case under the Prevention of Corruption Act. He relied on precedents such as *Kusheshwar Dubey Vs. Ms Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.*, *M/s Stanzen Toyotetsu India P. Ltd. Vs. Girish V*, and *Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.* The court, however, held that there is no hard and fast rule mandating the stay of departmental proceedings merely because criminal proceedings are pending. The court emphasized that departmental proceedings cannot always be delayed and noted that the petitioner had previously sought expedited proceedings. The court referenced *Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs T. Srinivas* and *State Bank of India vs. Neelam Nag* to support the decision that staying departmental proceedings is not necessary in every case.2. Compliance with the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 regarding the timeline for inquiry proceedings:The petitioner contended that the inquiry proceedings should have been concluded within six months as per Rule 14(24) of the 1965 Rules. The court acknowledged that the proceedings had been delayed but attributed the delay to the successive Inquiry Officers’ failure to conclude the inquiry. The court noted that the Tribunal had directed the Union Revenue Secretary to monitor the inquiry proceedings to ensure they were completed promptly, in line with the Supreme Court’s decision in *Prem Nath Bali Vs. High Court of Delhi*.3. The impact of the petitioner’s retirement on the departmental proceedings:The petitioner retired on 30.09.2015, and subsequently sought to keep the inquiry proceedings in abeyance until the conclusion of the criminal trial. The court observed that the petitioner’s request for a stay was contradictory to his earlier request for an expedited inquiry. The court noted that the threat of dismissal no longer loomed over the petitioner post-retirement, reducing the urgency of staying the proceedings. The Tribunal had also remarked on the petitioner’s attempt to play 'hide and seek' with his requests.4. The relationship between the charges in the departmental and criminal proceedings:The court compared the charges in the departmental and criminal proceedings, concluding that they operate within different frameworks. The departmental charges pertained to the non-disclosure of properties and maintaining absolute integrity, which are distinct from the criminal charges of acquiring disproportionate assets. The court cited *Dr. Balwinder Kumar Sharma Vs. Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court* to emphasize that the nature of charges in departmental proceedings can warrant separate consideration from criminal charges.Conclusion:The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming that the departmental proceedings should continue without being stayed. The court highlighted that the petitioner’s earlier request for an expedited inquiry and the distinct nature of the departmental charges justified the continuation of the proceedings. The court reiterated the importance of conducting departmental inquiries expeditiously to maintain public administration efficiency, referencing multiple precedents to support its decision.