it2025_00896 — Departmental proceedings can run parallel to criminal trials. Stay granted in earlier OA was only for six months or until evidence was completed - Does not imply that proceedings must be halted until the final decision of the criminal cases

Departmental proceedings can run parallel to criminal trials. Stay granted in earlier OA was only for six months or until evidence was completed - Does not imply that proceedings must be halted until the final decision of the criminal cases — The chunk provided discusses a case where an applicant was charged in departmental proceedings based on allegations from a four-year-old criminal case, after which a departmental charge memo was issu... — Facts: The CBI had registered a criminal case on 7-3-2017 against the Applicant, working as Superintendent in the Respondent's organization since 2009, for allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe from the proprietor of one M/s. K.M. Plastics. The CBI conducted a raid and recovered ₹ 4,00,000 from the Applicant's vehicle, along with additional amounts from his office and residence. A departmental charge-memo was also issued to the Applicant on 20-1-2021. The sole article of charge in the departmental charge memo is that the Applicant acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant and demanded ₹ 10,00,000 from the said proprietor of M/s. K.M. Plastics. In the CBI case, the Applicant was arrayed as Accused No. 1 and the proprietor of M/s. K.M. Plastics was arrayed as Accused No. 2. The Applicant challenged simultaneous departmental proceedings while the criminal case was pending by filing O.A. No. 811 of 2021 leading the Tribunal to stay the departmental inquiry for six months or until the criminal case's evidence was completed. The Tribunal also directed that after the criminal case is decided, the parties are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. On the ground that disciplinary proceedings are independent of criminal trials and that the six-month stay had already expired, in order to resume the inquiry, the Respondents issued a notice on 19-9-2022 to resume the departmental inquiry which was objected to by the Applicant citing the Tribunal's earlier order and the Applicant sought further deferment until the criminal case is concluded. Challenging the resumption of departmental proceedings and asserting that they violate the Tribunal's earlier directive, the Applicant has filed the present OA. Facts of O.A. No. 707 of 2022.- The CBI registered a criminal case on 7-3-2017 against the Applicant, working as Inspector of Central Tax in the jurisdiction of Hyderabad-II Commissionerate in connection with an alleged demand of bribe of ₹ 10 lakh by one Shri S. Gopala Krishna Murthy, working as Superintendent of Central Excise, Anti-Evasion, Hyderabad-II Commissionerate. The CBI conducted proceedings outside the office on 7-3-2017 and allegedly recovered ₹ 4 lakh from Mr. S. Gopala Krishna Murthy. Thereafter, the CBI conducted searches at Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, Hyderabad-II Commissionerate and an amount of ₹ 2 lakhs was seized from the Applicant's office and ₹ 1 lakh from his residence, linking him to the case. The Applicant was named Accused No.4 in the CBI charge-sheet. A departmental charge-memo. was issued to the Applicant on 2-2-2021. The Applicant challenged the departmental proceedings, arguing that they were based on the same facts as the criminal case and that he was falsely implicated. The Tribunal stayed the inquiry for six months, allowing the department to review the matter afterwards. When the department resumed proceedings after the expiry of the period of 6 months, the Applicant sought further deferment until the criminal case concluded. However, the Inquiry Officer issued Notice, dated 11-10-2022 fixing the inquiry on 28-10-2022. Being aggrieved, the Applicant filed the present OA. Facts of O.A. No. 210 of 2023.- The CBI registered a criminal case (RC 06(A)/2017) on 7-3-2017 against the Applicant, working as Inspector of Central Tax in the jurisdiction of Hyderabad-II Commissionerate in connection with an alleged demand of bribe of ₹ 10 lakh from one Shri Jagdish of M/s. KM Plastics by one Shri S. Gopala Krishna Murthy, working as Superintendent of Central Excise, Anti-Evasion, Hyderabad-II Commissionerate. The CBI allegedly recovered ₹ 4 lakhs from Mr. S. Gopala Krishna Murthy and later seized ₹ 2 lakh from an office almirah and ₹ 3.60 lakh from the Applicant's residence, which he claimed was from sale of property proceeds. After four years, on 5-3-2021, a departmental charge-memo was issued against the Applicant based on the same allegations as that of charges in the criminal case. The Applicant challenged the disciplinary proceedings in O.A. No. 701 of 2021 and on 16-2-2022, the Tribunal stayed the disciplinary inquiry for six months or until the completion of evidence in the criminal case. The Tribunal directed that the parties could proceed as per the law after the criminal case was decided. The Inquiry Officer issued notice on 19-9-2022 calling upon the Applicant to attend enquiry on 10-10-2022 which was objected to by the Applicant citing the Tribunal's earlier order. The Inquiry Officer once again issued a notice on 20-3-2023 fixing the Inquiry date as 11-4-2023. Challenging the resumption of departmental proceedings and asserting that they violate the Tribunal's earlier directive, the Applicant has filed the present OA. The Applicants in all the three cases contended that the Court had already ordered in the earlier OAs filed by the Applicants that the said departmental proceedings be kept in abeyance for six months or till evidence is completed, whichever is earlier. It was also ordered that 'after the criminal case is decided, the parties are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.' Citing the above directions, the Applicants contended that the decision rendered by the competent court cannot be challenged in collateral proceedings and that the Respondents have no right to issue the respective Impugned Notices, dated 19-9-2022, 11-10-2022 and 20-3-2023 directing the Applicant to appear before the inquiry officer contrary to the orders of this Tribunal. Moreover, the Respondents have accepted the earlier order of this Tribunal and when the earlier orders have not been challenged, it had attained finality and the earlier orders are binding on the Respondents. The Learned counsel for the Applicants cited the judgment of State Bank of India and others v. P. Zadenga wherein a reference has been made to the judgment in Capt. M. Paul Anthony wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that when allegations in both are identical, the department may not be permitted to proceed with the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. Reiterating the facts as mentioned above, the Counsel for the Respondents argued that it is settled law that disciplinary proceedings can be allowed to proceed simultaneously when a criminal trial is pending on the same charges. The Respondents further argued that the Tribunal's earlier order only stayed the inquiry for six months or until the completion of evidence in the criminal case, whichever was earlier, and after this period, proceedings were resumed lawfully. Further, making a reference to DoP&T OM, dated 1-8-2007, the Counsel for the Respondents contended that merely because a criminal trial is pending, departmental inquiry involving the very same charges as in the criminal proceedings is not barred and that the approach and objective in the criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings are altogether distinct and different. The subsequent DoP&T OM, dated 21-7-2016 also reiterates that there is no bar in law for initiation of simultaneous criminal and departmental proceedings on the same set of allegations. The Respondents further contended that the charges framed against the Applicants in the departmental inquiry are in regard to their misconduct, lack of devotion to duty, lack of integrity and their conduct unbecoming of a Government servant and the charges are sought to be established on the basis of evidence, not necessarily based on the recovery of the alleged bribe money. In support of their contention, the Respondents relied upon the following various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and sought dismissal of the OAs:- I. Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another, [(1999) 3 SCC 679] II. Depot Manager, APSRTC v. Mohd Yousuf Miya, Civil Appeal No. 15420-22 of 1996 arising out of SLP (C) No. 16386, 16868 and 16920 of 1996. III. State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena [(1996) 6 SCC 417]. IV. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others v. T. Srinivas, Civil Appeal (C) No. 4985 of 2004 arising out of SLP No. 24698 of 2003. V. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Kushal Bhan, [AIR 1960 SC 806, 1960 (3) SCR 227]. VI. HPCL v. Sarvesh Berry, Civil Appeal No. 7980 of 2004, arising out of SLP(C) No. 24560 of 2003.