Kumar Rajesh Chandra, Member A
1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.
2. By means of this Original Application (OA), the applicant has challenged the charge-sheet dated 22.11.2017 with a further prayer to exonerate him from the charges levelled against him with all consequential benefits.
3. The brief facts of the case, as projected in the Original Application are that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Anti Corruption Branch, Mumbai had earlier registered a case against the applicant on 23.5.2015 pursuant to written complaint dated 18.3.2015 filed by one Ramesh A. Shejul wherein it was alleged that he was the Manager of a Firm which was in the name and style Vishal Super Services, engaging Labour Contractor at the Ordnance Factory, Ambernath. The specific allegation against the applicant was that while he was working as Additional General Manager, he demanded an illegal gratification to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- for clearing the bills. Thereafter, the trap was laid on 25.3.2015 at the Ordnance Factory, Ambernath and various post trap formalities were completed by the CBI. The CBI proceeded on the basis of complaint registered by the complainant and submitted a final report regarding closure of the case because the CBI did not find sufficient evidence to put up the case for trial on the basis of the complaint given by the complainant. It is also averred in the O.A. that the CBI submitted the said report along with the Forensic Voice Examination Report to the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Special Judge, CBI after appreciating the closure report forwarded by the CBI has recorded a finding that the CBI has not found sufficient material on the complaint preferred by the complainant and has held that there is no sufficient material to prosecute the applicant for the alleged offences. Thereafter, the applicant was issued a charge-sheet under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on 22.11.2017, which was served upon the applicant on 9.1.2008. The allegation levelled in the charge-sheet that the applicant while he was working as Additional General Manager, OFA, instructed his P.A. to make call to Sri Ramesh Shejul, Manager of M/s Vishal Super Services, with a further instruction to the complainant to meet the applicant at his office. It was also alleged that the applicant demanded illegal gratification to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- from the complainant at his office on 14.3.2015 for clearing his pending bills, which was denied by the applicant. Pursuant to the chargesheet, the applicant submitted his reply on 18.1.2018 to the Government of India, Department of Defence Production, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi with a prayer to exonerate him from the charges levelled against him. Being aggrieved, the applicant knocked the door of this Tribunal by filing the aforementioned O.A. with the relief(s) as narrated hereinabove.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents have contested the claim of the applicant by filing a detailed Reply wherein they have stated that while working as Additional General Manager, the applicant had got his PA to make a phone call to Sri Ramesh A. Shejul, Manager of M/s Vishal Super Services and asked him to come to his office. Accordingly, Sri Shejul went to meet the applicant in his office on 14.3.2015 where the applicant had demanded a bribe of Rs. 25,000/- for clearing his pending bills. Since the complainant did not want to give bribe amount, he lodged a complaint with SP, CBI, ACB, Mumbai on 18.3.2015 levelling allegation of demanding bribe by the applicant. Based on his complaint, CBI made a verification of his complaint on 19.3.2015 by recording the conversation held between the applicant and Sri Shejul. The CBI recovered the currency notes of Rs. 25,000/- used as a trap money. The CBI vide letter dated 12.4.2016 forwarded the CBI report dated 15.4.2016 to the Chief Vigilance Officer, OFB. Based on the oral and documentary evidence produced by CBI during investigation, CBI has recommended for initiation of regular departmental action against the applicant. The respondents also stated that CBI has filed a closure report dated 28.12.2015 under Section 169 of Cr.P.C. before the CBI Court, Kalyan. Based on the closure report, the CBI Court vide order dated 30.6.2017 has observed that there is no sufficient material with prosecution to prosecute the applicant for the alleged offences by accepting the report under Section 169 of Cr.P.C. The respondents have also stated that a chargesheet was issued to the applicant under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 by the disciplinary authority. To this, the applicant submitted his reply on 18.1.2018 stating therein that since the CBI Court has exonerated him on the basis of closure report submitted by the CBI, the charges levelled against him in the chargesheet may be dropped. After examination of defence statement/reply against the chargesheet, the competent authority has ordered for appointment of Inquiry Officer. The respondents have also cited number of decisions in support of their case stating that mere acquittal in a criminal proceedings would not ipso facto nullify the departmental proceedings. Lastly, they have stated that the present O.A has no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. Moreover, the instant closure report is not acquittal, but lack of sufficient evidence for initiating prosecution in a criminal case.
5. The applicant has also filed Rejoinder to the Reply filed by the respondents refuting the contentions of the respondents made in the Reply by reiterating the averments as already made in the Original Application and nothing new has been added in the Rejoinder.
6. Additional Reply has also been filed by the Respondents by refuting the contentions of the applicant made in the Rejoinder while reiterating the averments made in the Reply.
7. The only issue involved in this O.A. is whether the applicant, who has not been prosecuted under Section 169 Cr.P.C. for lack of sufficient evidence in the criminal proceedings on the basis of closure report as submitted by the CBI, can be punished in departmental proceedings or not ? The factual matrix of the case are not in dispute. The applicant has been issued a chargesheet under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on the basis of a criminal case as filed by the CBI. The applicant in the O.A. has no-where stated about the fate of chargesheet issued to him by the competent authority. The chargesheet has been issued to the applicant way back in the year 2017 (22.11.2017) and the reply thereto has been submitted by the applicant on 18.1.2018, but what happened thereafter, has neither been mentioned by the applicant in his Original Application or in the Rejoinder nor the respondents have said anything about it. Whether any punishment on the basis of chargesheet, impugned in the O.A. has been inflicted upon the applicant or not, has also not been known nor the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties have informed this Tribunal about it. Most likely, the disciplinary proceedings pursuant to chargesheet dated 22.11.2017 could be concluded and some orders might have been passed thereon, but no information to this effect could be furnished to this Tribunal. Not only that, against the charge-sheet no Original Application is liable to be entertained as it is pre-mature stage unless and untill it is established that the chargesheet has been issued by an authority, who is not competent to do so or it has been issued without following the rules relating to disciplinary proceedings, which in the instant case is lacking. Hence, the Original Application is not liable to be entertained.
8. There is another aspect of the matter that it is well settled law that departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings can run simultaneously in absence of any legal bar to such simultaneity. Time and again the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as Hon’ble High Court have been pleased to observe that departmental proceedings can also be initiated even after acquittal in a criminal proceedings. It is also noticed that departmental proceedings and criminal case have its own sphere of object and effectively, it has different implications at different levels. The nature and scope of a criminal case are very different from those of departmental disciplinary proceeding and an order of acquittal, therefore, cannot conclude the departmental proceedings as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nelson Motis Vs. Union of India & Others. In the case of South Bengal State Transport Corporation Vs. Swapan Kumar Mitra reported in JT 2006 (2) SC 307 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that mere acquittal in a criminal proceedings would not ipso facto nullify the departmental proceedings. Moreover, it is not a case of acquittal, but a criminal case that could not be put up for trial as per the provisions of Section 169 Cr.P.C. quoting lack of sufficient evidence and hence closure report was filed by the CBI.
9. The O.A. has been filed in the year 2018 challenging the chargesheet dated 22.11.2017 and now we are in the mid of 2023, naturally some orders might have been passed pursuant to aforementioned chargesheet and this fact has not been incorporated either by learned counsel for the applicant or learned counsel for the respondents and the order passed thereon has not been challenged by the applicant in the instant O.A. through the amendment application. As such the O.A. is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on this count alone.
10. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, we do not find any good ground to interfere in the charge-sheet dated 22.11.2017. Accordingly, the O.A. has no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. Dismissed accordingly. No costs.
