B. Prasada Rao Vs Depot Manager, APSRTC, Kurnool and others

@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER

1. An employee of the A.P, State Road Transport Corporation invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the proceedings No.01/ I14(17)/2000-YMGR, dated 19-10-2000 under which the petitioner has been placed under suspension pending enquiry.

2. The factual matrix leading to the filing of the present writ petition has been set out as hereunder: - The petitioner is working as Chief Inspector in the respondent-Corporation. He was charged for the offence u/s 417 of the Indian Penal Code in Crime No. 180 of 2000 in It Town Police Station, Kurnool. It is the case of the petitioner that the complaint is a false one and engineered at the instance of one Mr. Sunkanna who is inimically disposed towards him. Hence the petitioner filed Criminal Petition No.4208 of 2000 on the file of this Court seeking to quash the FIR in the above said crime and the said petition has been admitted and all further proceedings have been stayed by this Court. The respondent-Corporation, taking into consideration the fact that a cheating case has been registered against the petitioner and in view of the seriousness of the complaint, placed the petitioner under suspension in terms of Regulation 18(1) (a) of the APSRTC Employees (CCA) Regulations, 1967 (for short ''the APSRTC Regulations'') pending enquiry into the charges.

3. Sri E. Ayyapu Reddy, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is entitled to notice before he is placed under suspension under Regulation 18(1)(a) of the APSRTC Regulations. He further submitted that insofar as the criminal case in concerned, the petitioner has filed quash proceedings u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in this Court and this Court has already admitted the Criminal Petition No.4208 of 2000 and stayed all further proceedings. In short, it is his contention that even for placing the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry, notice is mandatory under Regulation 18 of the APSRTC Regulations. Regulation 18(1)(a) and (b) of the said Regulations, which is relevant for the purpose of this case, reads as follows:

"18. Suspension :--(1) The appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or any other authority authorized by the Corporation in that behalf by a Resolution may, subject to such conditions and limitations, if any, as may be specified, place an employee under suspension from service:

(a) Pending investigation or enquiry into grave charges, where such suspension is necessary in the public interest.

(b) Where any criminal offence is under investigation or trial:

Provided that where the order of suspension is made by an authority lower than the appointing authority, such authority shall forthwith report to the appointing authority the circumstance in which the order of suspension was made."

3. From a plain reading of the afore-mentioned provisions, it cannot be said that the petitioner is entitled to notice prior to suspension since ''suspension'' by itself is not a punishment but only pending enquiry. The learned Counsel further contended that when facts and evidence in both the criminal proceedings and departmental enquiry are the same, both the proceedings cannot be conducted simultaneously, though separately. The question raised is of a perennial nature and has been the subject-matter of various judicial pronouncements. The Apex Court had an occasion to review the entire case law in State of Rajasthan Vs. B.K. Meena and others, , wherein it was held as follows:-

"It would be evident from the above decisions that each of them starts with the indisputable proposition that there is no legal bar for both proceedings to go on simultaneously and then say that in certain situation it may not be ''desirable'', ''advisable'' or ''appropriate'' to proceed with the disciplinary enquiry when a criminal case is pending on identical charge. The staying of disciplinary proceedings, it is emphasised, is a matter to be determined having regard to the facts and circumstances of a given case and that no hard and fast rule can be enunciated in that behalf. The only ground suggested in the above decisions as constituting a valid ground for staying the disciplinary proceedings is that ''the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced''. This ground has, however, been hedged in by providing further that this may be done in cases of grave nature involving questions of fact and law. In our respectful opinion, it means that only the charges must be grave but that the case must involve complicated questions of law and fact. Moreover, ''advisability'', ''desirability'' or ''propriety'', as the case may be, has to be determined in each case taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case. The ground indicated in The Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. Vs. Kushal Bhan, and Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Its Workmen, is also not an invariable rule. It is only a factor which will go into the scales while judging the advisability or desirability of staying the disciplinary proceedings. One of the contending considerations is that the disciplinary enquiry cannot be - and should not be -delayed unduly. So far as criminal cases are concerned, it is well known that they drag on endlessly where high officials or persons are involved. They get bogged down on one or the other ground. They hardly ever reach a prompt conclusion. That is the reality inspite of repeated advice and admonitions from this Court and the High Courts. If a criminal case is unduly delayed that may itself be a good ground for going ahead with the disciplinary enquiry even where the disciplinary proceedings are held over at an earlier stage. The interests of administration and good Government demand that these proceedings are concluded expeditiously. It must be remembered that interests of administration demand that undesirable elements are thrown out and any charge of misdemeanor is inquired into promptly, The disciplinary proceedings are meant not really to punish the guilty but to keep the administrative machinery unsullied by getting rid of bad elements. The interest of the delinquent officer also lies in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. If he is not guilty of the charges, his honour should be vindicated at the earliest possible moment and if he is guilty, he should be dealt with promptly according to law. It is not also in the interest of administration that persons accused of serious misdemeanor should be continued in office indefinitely, i.e., for long periods awaiting the result of criminal proceedings. It is not in the interest of administration. It only serves the interest of the guilty and dishonest. While it is not possible to enumerate the various factors, for and against the stay of disciplinary proceedings, we found it necessary to emphasise some of the important considerations in view of the fact that very often the disciplinary proceedings are being stayed for long periods pending criminal proceedings. Stay of disciplinary proceedings cannot be, and should not be, a matter of course. All the relevant factors, for and against, should be weighed and a decision taken keeping in view of the various principles laid down in the decisions referred to above."

4. Ultimately the Apex Court felt that the Court should take into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances and expressed that staying of disciplinary proceedings cannot be a matter of course.

5. The Supreme Court in another leading case reported in Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Mohd. Yousuf Miya, etc., , has held that there is no bar to proceed simultaneously with the departmental inquiry and trial of criminal case unless the charge in the criminal case is of a grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law. In circumspection of the entire case law, the following principles emerge:

(a) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously though separately.

(b) If the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, then it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case.

(c) Whether the nature of charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case will depend upon the nature of offence and it cannot be taken in isolation. Each case has to be considered in accordance with its facts and circumstances.

6. The afore-mentioned principles have been affirmed by the Apex Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Another, , and the Court has held that departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously and that there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously. In the instant case the petitioner is charged for the offence u/s 417 of the Indian Penal Code and the suspension pending enquiry has been issued under Regulation 18 of the APSRTC Regulations. It cannot be said that the case involves complicated question of law and fact warranting stay of departmental proceedings till the conclusion of criminal case.

7. Now, adverting to the question whether suspension pending enquiry is a punishment, it has to be held that the order of suspension does not put an end to an employee''s service and he continues to be a member of the service though he is not permitted to work and he is paid only subsistence allowance. The employer has an unqualified right to place an employee under suspension and this right is recognized in service jurisprudence and has received the statutory recognition under service rules framed by various authorities including Union of India.

8. For the afore-mentioned discussion, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.