Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2021 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (5) TMI 1033 - HC - Indian LawsAppropriate Jurisdiction - whether the departmental proceedings can be permitted to continue in the wake of charges have been framed by the trial court or not? - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the charges framed in criminal trial and Articles of Charge issued to petitioner in departmental enquiry would show that the petitioner has been implicated in both the criminal as well as departmental proceedings on similar set of facts. However, this is bound to happen. When an employee is roped in a criminal offence, the disciplinary authority by taking cognizance of such initiation of criminal offence, proceeds with the departmental proceedings to take appropriate action as per the statutory rules governing the post an employee is holding. In case the offence is of serious nature, which may impute the integrity / character of an employee, then the department suspends the employee immediately and initiates further departmental proceedings. The reason for initiation and early conclusion of departmental proceedings in such cases seems to be three-fold: (i) To weed out an employee whose integrity / character has been put to doubt, prima facie, on account of some criminal proceedings having been initiated against him/her; (ii) At the same time, when an employee is suspended, he/she is entitled to atleast half of the pay that it was drawing before being suspended and thus, any inordinate delay in conclusion of departmental proceedings, where charges are of very serious nature, would unnecessarily entail burden on exchequer and thus will be against public interest; and (iii) The departmental proceedings is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service and thus, its initiation and conclusion as expeditiously as possible is in public interest. In the present case, it is not disputed that challan was presented in the year 2019 and charges were framed on 31.01.2020 (P-11), however till date no progress has been made in the criminal trial on account of one reason or the other. Although, the delay in criminal trial cannot be attributed to the petitioner, at the same time, the department cannot be expected to wait endlessly for the trial to conclude - The petitioner, being a judicial officer holding the rank of Additional District Judge and posted as Registrar (Recruitment) was required to have the highest standards of propriety as well as moral conduct. One of the documentary evidence that has come on record is by way of call detail record of petitioner – Dr. Balwinder Sharma whereby 726 and 34 calls / SMSs have been made between him and accused-Sunita, who incidentally was a topper in the HCS (Judicial) Preliminary Examination. This prima facie reflects towards a conduct not behoving the post that petitioner – Dr. Balwinder Sharma was holding. Charge 4 of Articles of Charge would show that the disciplinary authority has also charged the employee for immoral conduct and thereby violating the Government Employees (Conduct) Rules, 1966, Punjab as he had alleged developed intimate relations with Ms. Sunita. Further, petitioner has also been charged for failing to maintain absolute integrity as expected from a judicial officer and thus, has acted in a manner unbecoming of a judicial officer. These charges, by no stretch of imagination, can be gone into or enquired or punished by the Criminal Court. Hence, seen from this angle as well, we do not find any reason to stay disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. There is no legal bar to hold disciplinary as well as departmental proceedings simultaneously, however, in view of the fact that all the three Courts below had exercised their discretion in favour of staying the ongoing disciplinary proceedings, therefore, directions were issued for expeditious conclusion of trial. Petition dismissed.
|