TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 682X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n appeal before us. Basic facts required for the disposal of this appeal are as follows: The respondent herein while working with the first appellant as Upper Division Clerk at Visakhapatnam was arrested by the CBI after a trap and was charged for offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 13(i)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and a case in this regard is pending trial before the competent court. During the pendency of the said trial, the appellants decided to initiate departmental proceedings against the respondent and a charge memo framing three charges was issued to the respondent. First Article in the memo of charges referred to the allegations of the respondent receiving ₹ 200/- as bribe in violation of Rule 3(1)( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the disciplinary proceedings after the disclosure of the defence by the respondent which in effect would mean that the disciplinary proceedings will stand stayed almost till the disposal of the trial before the criminal court. Being aggrieved by the said order of the tribunal, the appellants herein, as stated above, preferred a writ petition before the High Court . The High Court by the impugned order agreed with the tribunal that the disciplinary proceedings should be stayed till the criminal trial was over and the request of the appellant, atleast to permit it to proceed with the departmental enquiry in regard to the charge No.3 which was independent of charges 1 and 2 was rejected on the ground that the said charge No.3 is inter-conne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ose his defence in advance which would seriously prejudice his case before the criminal court. The learned counsel also relied upon the very same judgments on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the appellant in support of his contention, reference to which has been made herein above. A reading of M.Paul Anthony s case (supra) it is noted that there is consensus of judicial opinion on the basic principle that proceedings in a criminal case and departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously, however this court noticed that certain exceptions have been carved out to the said basic principle. In State of Rajasthan vs. B.K.Meena Ors. (supra), this court held: The only ground suggested in the decisions of the Supr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partmental proceedings. On the contrary, reading of the two impugned orders indicates that both the tribunal and the High Court proceeded as if a departmental enquiry had to be stayed in every case where a criminal trial in regard to the same misconduct is pending. Neither the tribunal nor the High Court did take into consideration the seriousness of the charge which pertains to acceptance of illegal gratification and the desirability of continuing the appellant in service inspite of such serious charges levelled against him. This Court in the said case of State of Rajasthan (supra) has further observed that the approach and the objective in the criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings is altogether distinct and different. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
