it2025_00336 — Prosecution charge-sheet filed in a Court of law and charge-sheet filed by its department if both are same, even then the departmental enquiry may proceed without the completion of prosecution chargesheet pending in a Court of Law as the two are for different purposes - departmental enquiry is to find out the misconduct of the employee and the trial in a Court of Law is to examine the offence committed by the charged official in respect of his public dealings

IT Rules

Prosecution charge-sheet filed in a Court of law and charge-sheet filed by its department if both are same, even then the departmental enquiry may proceed without the completion of prosecution chargesheet pending in a Court of Law as the two are for different purposes - departmental enquiry is to find out the misconduct of the employee and the trial in a Court of Law is to examine the offence committed by the charged official in respect of his public dealings — The case involves an employee who was charged with fraud by CBI and was also under departmental enquiry. The employee argued that continuing the departmental enquiry would prejudice his criminal tria... — Facts : The Applicant is a sub-postmaster in Chemical Industries Post Office, Vadodara. He was suspended on 7-9-2011 in connection with the alleged "illegal second premature closure of Senior Citizen's" Saving Scheme Accounts". He was in judicial custody on his arrest by CBI on 28-9-2010 till 27-12-2010 for the same offence. He was issued with a charge-sheet by the Department, dated 13-1-2011 and the departmental enquiry was started on 31-3-2012 at the stage of examination of prosecution witness. The departmental enquiry and the prosecution by CBI Court proceedings are same, the Applicant prays for staying the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal trial initiated by CBI. The departmental charge-sheet was issued later than the prosecution trial by CBI, he requests for postponing the departmental enquiry. He also states that the charge-memo is not sustainable as it violates the provisions of Vigilance Manual, Vol-I, Chapter-III, Para. 1-7. Hence he filed this OA for declaring the impugned orders in issuing charge-sheet and proceeding with departmental enquiry when the CBI case is pending in Court of law and also revoke his suspension and to take him back on duty. CBI filed the charge-sheet in the fraud case in CBI Court, Mirzapur committed by him as Postmaster in Chemical Industry Post Office under Indian Penal Code read with Section 13 (1)
(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Respondents submit that the criminal case is not a bar to stop departmental proceedings and the Applicant was placed under suspension as per Rule 10 (1) of CCS (CCA) Rules. His appeal against suspension is also rejected. The Respondents deny that the departmental inquiry and the charges in Criminal Court are different. Hence the OA is to be rejected. When the case came up for hearing on 10-5-2012, an interim order was passed directing the Respondents to maintain status quo as on that date. The Respondents filed an M.A. No. 21 of 2014 for vacating the interim order as the Department is desirous of completing the departmental enquiry quickly as the Applicant is retiring on 30-6-2014. The Applicant submits that the contents of the departmental charge-sheet and the pending court case filed by CBI is same and if departmental enquiry is continued, it will prejudice his case in the criminal trial for having disclosed his defence in the departmental enquiry. He further states that he is subjected to double jeopardy. In that connection, the Tribunal observed "We do not consider that the two proceedings simultaneously being faced by the Applicant will amount to the Constitutional prohibition of double jeopardy under Article 20 (2) of the Constitution because what it prohibits is two criminal proceedings (prosecutions) leading to punishing a person twice for the same proceedings. In the case on hand, the departmental proceeding against the Applicant is not criminal proceeding and is operating in a different jurisdictional area." In the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and others v. Sarvesh Berry [ 2005 (10) SCC 471 ], it was held by the Apex Court that the Departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service efficiency of public service. It would hence be conducted and completed expeditiously. There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental enquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the charge in the criminal case is of grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law. Further this judgment states "The enquiry in the departmental proceedings relates to conduct or breach of duty of delinquent officer to punish him for misconduct defined under relevant statutory rules or law. That the strict standard of proof or applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded is a settled legal position". Facts in a case will prove whether the conduct of departmental enquiry will jeopardize the criminal case proceedings. In the case of Captain M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another [ 199 AIR (SC) 1416 ], three main points were emphasized. They are: (1) In a criminal case, it involves complicated questions of law. (2) Due regard has to be given to the fact that departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. (3) 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 pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date. In short, there is no bar to proceed both the departmental and criminal case in a Court of law simultaneously. It is a well-settled position that acquittal of an employee in the criminal case is not binding on the disciplinary authority in the matter of proceeding against him departmentally in order to maintain discipline in service and keep up efficiency of public service. This is vividly brought out in the recent case in Deputy Inspector-General of Police and another v. S. Samuthiram [ 2013 (1) SCC 598 ].

IT Rules

Prosecution charge-sheet filed in a Court of law and charge-sheet filed by its department if both are same, even then the departmental enquiry may proceed without the completion of prosecution chargesheet pending in a Court of Law as the two are for different purposes - departmental enquiry is to find out the misconduct of the employee and the trial in a Court of Law is to examine the offence committed by the charged official in respect of his public dealings — The case involves an employee who was charged with fraud by CBI and was also under departmental enquiry. The employee argued that continuing the departmental enquiry would prejudice his criminal tria... — Facts : The Applicant is a sub-postmaster in Chemical Industries Post Office, Vadodara. He was suspended on 7-9-2011 in connection with the alleged "illegal second premature closure of Senior Citizen's" Saving Scheme Accounts". He was in judicial custody on his arrest by CBI on 28-9-2010 till 27-12-2010 for the same offence. He was issued with a charge-sheet by the Department, dated 13-1-2011 and the departmental enquiry was started on 31-3-2012 at the stage of examination of prosecution witness. The departmental enquiry and the prosecution by CBI Court proceedings are same, the Applicant prays for staying the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal trial initiated by CBI. The departmental charge-sheet was issued later than the prosecution trial by CBI, he requests for postponing the departmental enquiry. He also states that the charge-memo is not sustainable as it violates the provisions of Vigilance Manual, Vol-I, Chapter-III, Para. 1-7. Hence he filed this OA for declaring the impugned orders in issuing charge-sheet and proceeding with departmental enquiry when the CBI case is pending in Court of law and also revoke his suspension and to take him back on duty. CBI filed the charge-sheet in the fraud case in CBI Court, Mirzapur committed by him as Postmaster in Chemical Industry Post Office under Indian Penal Code read with Section 13 (1)
(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Respondents submit that the criminal case is not a bar to stop departmental proceedings and the Applicant was placed under suspension as per Rule 10 (1) of CCS (CCA) Rules. His appeal against suspension is also rejected. The Respondents deny that the departmental inquiry and the charges in Criminal Court are different. Hence the OA is to be rejected. When the case came up for hearing on 10-5-2012, an interim order was passed directing the Respondents to maintain status quo as on that date. The Respondents filed an M.A. No. 21 of 2014 for vacating the interim order as the Department is desirous of completing the departmental enquiry quickly as the Applicant is retiring on 30-6-2014. The Applicant submits that the contents of the departmental charge-sheet and the pending court case filed by CBI is same and if departmental enquiry is continued, it will prejudice his case in the criminal trial for having disclosed his defence in the departmental enquiry. He further states that he is subjected to double jeopardy. In that connection, the Tribunal observed "We do not consider that the two proceedings simultaneously being faced by the Applicant will amount to the Constitutional prohibition of double jeopardy under Article 20 (2) of the Constitution because what it prohibits is two criminal proceedings (prosecutions) leading to punishing a person twice for the same proceedings. In the case on hand, the departmental proceeding against the Applicant is not criminal proceeding and is operating in a different jurisdictional area." In the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and others v. Sarvesh Berry [ 2005 (10) SCC 471 ], it was held by the Apex Court that the Departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service efficiency of public service. It would hence be conducted and completed expeditiously. There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental enquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the charge in the criminal case is of grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law. Further this judgment states "The enquiry in the departmental proceedings relates to conduct or breach of duty of delinquent officer to punish him for misconduct defined under relevant statutory rules or law. That the strict standard of proof or applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded is a settled legal position". Facts in a case will prove whether the conduct of departmental enquiry will jeopardize the criminal case proceedings. In the case of Captain M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another [ 199 AIR (SC) 1416 ], three main points were emphasized. They are: (1) In a criminal case, it involves complicated questions of law. (2) Due regard has to be given to the fact that departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. (3) 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 pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date. In short, there is no bar to proceed both the departmental and criminal case in a Court of law simultaneously. It is a well-settled position that acquittal of an employee in the criminal case is not binding on the disciplinary authority in the matter of proceeding against him departmentally in order to maintain discipline in service and keep up efficiency of public service. This is vividly brought out in the recent case in Deputy Inspector-General of Police and another v. S. Samuthiram [ 2013 (1) SCC 598 ].

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text