TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 1033X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lusion 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rejected. FACTS : An advertisement No. 6/2016 was notified by Haryana Public Service Commission for recruitment of Subordinate Judicial Officers in the State of Haryana (common called as HCS (Judicial) Examination). The petitioner, who was posted as Registered (Recruitment) on the establishment of respondent No. 1 High Court, was assigned the duty of assisting the recruitment committee in conduct of the preliminary examination. After the preliminary examination was conducted on 16.07.2017, a complaint was received by respondent No. 1 High Court on 20.07.2017 alleging therein that the question paper of preliminary examination held on 16.07.2017 was leaked and prayer was made for cancellation of the examination. The matter was taken up on judicial side as a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was filed vide CRM-M- No. 28947 of 2017, titled as Suman Versus State of Haryana and others . In the said petition, it was directed that an FIR be registered against the present petitioner and others and further a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was ordered to be constituted to conduct investigation pertaining to the alleged leakage of question paper of HCS (Judicia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artmental enquiry cannot be stayed till the decision of criminal case, then till the examination of witnesses who are common to both trial and enquiry, the department enquiry be kept in abeyance. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon the judgment passed by Hon ble Supreme Court in Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited Versus Girish V. and others (2014) 3 Supreme Court Cases 636 and State Bank of India and others Versus Neelam Nag and another (2016) 9 Supreme Court Cases 491. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and have scrutinized the paper-book. From the pleadings of the writ petition as well as arguments raised before us, we see that the sole question that arises before us to decide is as to whether the departmental proceedings can be permitted to continue in the wake of charges have been framed by the trial court or not? DISCUSSION ON CASE LAW Some of the leading decisions on the issue are required to be referred so as to answer the issue raised before us. The first judgment on this issue is Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra), whereby Hon ble Supreme Court, after considering the entire law involved had arrived to the followi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Anthony s case (supra). To the same effect is another judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7980 of 2004, decided on 09.12.2004, titled as Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Versus Sarvesh Berry , whereby while allowing the appeal filed by employer, it was held on facts that departmental proceedings could indeed continue as Criminal Court is concerned with the culpability of an offence punishable under various codes, whereas departmental proceeding is only pertaining to misconduct or breach of duty as defined under the relevant service rule and thus, applicability of Evidence Act stands excluded. Relevant paragraph No. 9 of the said judgment is reproduced as under:- 9. The purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution is two different and distinct aspects. The criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of a duty the offender owes to the society, or for breach of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. So crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. It w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.08.2007, titled as Ved Parkash Versus State of Haryana and others , 2007(4) SCT 423, the Division Bench of this Court was considering the case of an exemptee Head Constable seeking quashing of the charge-sheet and stay of the disciplinary proceedings during the pendency of the criminal trial in FIR No. 58 dated 22.09.2006 under Sections 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act registered at Police Station State Vigilance Bureau, Ambala City. The petitioner therein was shown to have been caught red handed while accepting the bribe. The Division Bench while referring the judgment of Capt. M. Paul Anthony's case (supra), held that disciplinary proceedings should not be stayed as a matter of course and the writ petition was dismissed. In Stanzen Tooyotetsu India P. Ltd. Versus Girish V. and others (2015) 6 RCR (Civil) 723, same proposition as held in Capt. M. Paul Anthony's case (supra) was re-iterated with a slight addition that department proceedings were stayed till the common witnesses of criminal and departmental proceedings were examined in criminal trial. Thus, to our mind, the crux of all the decisions referred herein above leads to one conclusion that grant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reach of trust in respect of entrusted question paper and thereby you committed the offence punishable U/s 409 of IPC and you all the other above named accused persons committed an offence punishable U/s 409 of IPC r/w 120-B of IPC and within my cognizance. Thirdly that on the above said period and place, you accused Balwinder Kumar Sharma being Registrar (Recruitment) as public servant was entrusted with the question paper of Haryana Civil Services, Judicial (Preliminary) to be held on 16/07/2017 and you leaked the question paper in pursuance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy induced the complainant to part with a sum of Rs. 1.5 Crores to provide her leaked question paper well in advance, as well as cheated Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and the other aspirants of the said examination and thereby you committed the offence punishable U/s 420 of IPC and you all the other above named accused persons committed an offence punishable U/s 420 of IPC r/w 120-B of IPC and within my cognizance. Fourthly that on the above said period and place, you accused Sunita influenced, by corrupt and illegal means to accused Balwinder Kumar Sharma being Registrar ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year 2017-18 at Chandigarh, Panchkula and Delhi, you accused Sunil @ Titu and accused Kuldip Singh (step brother of accused Sunita), Sunita, Sushila and Ayushi in pursuance of aforesaid conspiracy knowing that the offence regarding the leakage of paper has been committed and incriminating material, documents connected with the said offence were removed/destroyed from the rooms of Sunita and Ayushi, and you accused Sushila broken your mobile phone and you accused Sunil @ Titu destroyed the record relating to accommodation at Radha Krishan Temple, Sector 18, Chandigarh in order to disappear the evidence against you and other co-accused being part of conspiracy with the intention to screen the offender from legal punishment, as mentioned above, and thereby, you accused Sunil Titu and accused Kuldip Singh (step brother of accused Sunita), Sunita, Sushila and Ayushi committed an offence punishable u/s 201 of IPC whereas other accused persons committed an offence punishable U/s 201 of IPC r/w 120-B of IPC. And I hereby direct that you be tried by this Court for the aforesaid offences. (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, Articles of Charge appended with the memorandum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a and others' for direction to the respondents to register a case on the basis of complaint dated 19.07.2017 made by Sh. Manoj Kumar. FI.R. No.194 dated 19.09.2017, under Sections 8, 9 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 409, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against you at Police Station Sector-03 Chandigarh. During investigation of the case, it came to notice that you had developed intimate relations with Ms. Sunita amounting to immoral conduct thereby violated the Government Employees (Conduct) Rules, 1966, Punjab. Thus, you not only failed to maintain absolute integrity but also committed criminal act, maligned the image of judiciary in the eyes of public and acted in a manner unbecoming of a judicial officer. 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, in our opinion this is bound to happen. When an employee is roped in a criminal offence, the disciplinary authority by ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oral 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. We have highlighted only one of the aspect that is glaring at our faces to only satisfy ourselves regarding the decision taken vide impugned order dated 06.11.2019 (P-9) to continue with departmental proceedings. We would like to refrain ourselves to further delve into the issue and make more comments, lest it would prejudice the case of petitioner either during criminal trial or during the disciplinary proceedings. Further, it is to be noted that charges under Sections 409, 420, 120-B and 201 IPC have been framed on the basis of documentary and other evidence collected by the SIT during the course of investigation. How the paper was leaked and the manner it was further supplied for prosecution / Department to prove, which otherwise is within the special knowledge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39;s part by stalling the conclusion of departmental proceedings. Although the counsel for petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon ble Supreme Court in Neelam Nag s case (supra) to contend that criminal trial can be ordered to be expedited rather than continuation of departmental proceedings, however, we are of the view that the judgment is not at all applicable to the facts of the present case. In the said case, Neelam Nag was an employee of a bank and there was a memorandum of settlement dated 10.04.2002 which protected the employees of bank from necessary departmental proceedings until completion of trial in the criminal case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the trial Court to decide the trial within one year and respondent was to extend full cooperation to the trial Court for early disposal and if the trial is not completed within one year, the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent shall be resumed by the enquiry officer concerned. No such memorandum has been pleaded to be in existence amongst the parties in the present case. Similarly, the judgment of Stanzen' case (supra) is also not applicable to the facts of the case as in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
