Ajay Tewari, J.@mdashThis petition has been filed challenging the initiation of departmental proceedings against the petitioner on allegations which have been also leveled in an FIR No. 14 dated 10.5.2008 registered against him under Sections 7, 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
2. Counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment of the Hon�ble Supreme Court in The Managing Director State Bank of Hyderabad and Anr. v. P. Kata Rao 2008 (3) SCT 153 wherein the Hon�ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
18. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the jurisdiction of superior courts in interfering with a finding of fact arrived at by the Enquiry Officer is limited. The High Court, it is trite, would also ordinarily not interfere with the quantum of punishment. There cannot, furthermore, be any doubt or dispute that only because the delinquent employee who was also facing a criminal charge stands acquitted, the same, by itself, would not debar the disciplinary authority in initiating a fresh departmental proceeding and/or where the departmental proceedings had already been initiated or to continue therewith.
19. We are no unmindful or different principles laid down by this Court from time to time. The approach that the court�s jurisdiction is unlimited although had not found favour with some Benches, the applicability of the doctrine of proportionality, however, had not been deviated from.
20. The legal principle enunciated to the effect that on the same set of facts the delinquent shall not be proceeded in a departmental proceedings and in a criminal case simultaneously, has, however, been deviated from. The dicta of this Court in Cap. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Anr. 1999 (2) SCT 660 however, remains unshaken although the applicability thereof had been found to be dependent on the fact situation obtaining in each case.
3. I find that the principles laid down in the above said case are that the applicability of the doctrine that a delinquent shall not be proceeded in departmental proceedings and in a criminal case simultaneously has to be weighed against the facts situation obtaining in each case.
4. In the written statement filed it has been asserted that two prosecution witnesses have already been examined in the departmental inquiry wherein the petitioner has also conducted cross examination. Thus it is not a case where defence of the petitioner has not yet been disclosed. In a latest decision in the case of Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab reported as 2009 (1) SCT 86 a Division Bench of this Court has laid down as follows:
A perusal of the aforementioned judgments shows that no straight jacket formula can be laid down in such cases where departmental proceedings and criminal trial proceed simultaneously and no inflexible rule can be laid down for cases in which departmental proceedings may or may not be stayed pending trial in a criminal case against a delinquent officer. It appears that each case has to be considered in the backdrop of its unique facts and circumstances. The conclusion is inescapable that there is no bar to the departmental proceedings and the criminal trial to go on parallel to each other. In the instant case the petitioner, who is member of a disciplined force, took illegal gratification of Rs. 2500/- for releasing a moped ceased by the police. A complaint in this regard was made by one Jaswinder Singh and on that basis a case under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against him at Police Station Division No. 7, Jalandhar. The petitioner was charge-sheeted by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar on 3rd January, 2006. In the meanwhile, departmental proceedings were also initiated and a charge-sheet dated 27th June, 2005 was also served upon the petitioner. This court was pleased to stay the departmental proceedings on 9th November, 2006.
From the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, a conclusion cannot be drawn that complicated questions of law and fact are involved in the criminal trial. However, it may take its own time to conclude. For this much period the employer would have no option but to keep the departmental proceedings in abeyance, despite there being serious charges of corruption against the employee. Already stay has continued for almost two years during which period the departmental proceedings have remained at a standstill. The departmental proceedings, therefore, cannot be allowed to hang fire endlessly.
We are, thus, of the considered view that the petitioner who is member of a disciplined force and is charged with serious misconduct, is not entitled to the relief claimed for. The departmental proceedings cannot be allowed to be kept in abeyance indefinitely till the conclusion of the criminal trial. In fact, stay of departmental proceedings indefinitely would only lead to protracting the same without any basis. It is, thus, not possible for us to allow the plea of the petitioner to stay the departmental proceedings till conclusion of the criminal trial.
5. In the present case also, the petitioner was caught red handed while accepting bribe of Rs. 1500/- for taking out the name of the complainant from the criminal case.
6. Keeping in view the judgments quoted above and the facts of the case, the present writ petition is dismissed.
