20 November 1996
Supreme Court
Download

DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC Vs MOHD. YOUSUF MIYA

Bench: K. RAMASWAMY,G.T. NANAVATI,K. VENKATASWAMI.
Case number: C.A. No.-015419-015419 / 1996
Diary number: 78609 / 1996
Advocates: Vs S.. UDAYA KUMAR SAGAR


1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: DEPOT MANAGER, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROADTRANSPORT CORPORATIO

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MOHD. YOUSUF MIYA ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       20/11/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI, K. VENKATASWAMI.

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH               CIVIL APPEAL NO.15420-22 OF 1996       (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.16386, 16868 and 16920 of                            1996)                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      The facts  in appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.16342/96 are sufficient for disposal of the common controversy raised in these cases.      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, made on June  18, 1996 in W.P. No.612 of 1996. The appellants had initiated disciplinary proceedings against the respondent on the imputation  that on September 15, 1995 while driving the Corporation’s double-decker  vehicle near Gandhi Hospital in Hyderabed city,  due to  lack of anticipation, he had caused an accident  in which  a cyclist  died. Consequently, action was initiated  for misconduct  and enquiry  was ordered  for misconduct under  Regulation 28(ix) of the Employees Conduct Rules, 1963.  It would  appear  that  prosecution  has  been launched by  the police  for  an  offence  punishable  under Section 304,  Part II,  IPC and  in some cases under Section 338  IPC   and  they   are  pending  trial.  Therefore,  the respondents filed  writ petition  in the High Court for stay of the  departmental proceedings.  The learned  single Judge stayed  the  proceedings.  On  appeal,  the  Division  Bench confirmed the same. Thus, these appeals by special leave.      It  is  contended  by  Sri  Altaf  Ahmad,  the  learned Additional Solicitor  General appearing  for the  appellants that the  High Court  was not right in directing stay of the departmental enquiry  on the  ground  that  is  would  cause prejudice to  the respondents  at the trial. In the criminal case, the  question is the culpability of rash and negligent driving of  the respondent. In the departmental enquiry, the misconduct relates to his failure to anticipate the accident and prevention  thereof by  his  conduct.  Therefore,  there would  be   no  prejudice  in  conducting  the  departmental enquiry. The High Court, therefore, was not right in staying the proceedings.

2

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

    In support thereof, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in State of Rajasthan vs. B.K. Meena &  Ors. [(1996)  7 SCALE  363]. Shri L.N. Rao, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has contended that the  ratio in that judgment itself would indicated that only in  grave cases,  the enquiry should be permitted to be completed  as  expeditiously  as  possible.  Otherwise,  the administration would  be jeopardised.  In this  case, such a grave nature does not arise. The facts in both, the criminal case and  the disciplinary enquiry constitute the same cause of action  or material  disclosure of  which  would  gravely prejudice the  defence of  the respondents  in the  criminal cases. Therefore,  the High  Court was  right in staying the proceedings. In  support thereof,  he placed strong reliance on the  judgment of  this Court in Kusheshwar Debey vs. M/s. Bharat Coking  Coal Ltd.  & Ors. [(1988) 4 SCC 319]. He also placed reliance  on the  judgment  of  this  Court  in  Food Corporation of  India vs.  George Varghese  &  Anr.  [(1991) Supp. 2  SCC 143].  Therein, the  question was: that whether the High  Court would  be justified  in quashing the enquiry proceedings, after  the acquittal  of the delinquent officer in the  criminal case?  The High Court had held in that case that  it   was  not   expedient  to  conduct  enquiry  after acquittal. While interfering with that view and holding that the  employer  is  entitled  to  initiate  the  disciplinary proceedings,  after   the  acquittal,  this  Court  made  an observation that  the employer  fairly had  stayed its hands till the  conclusion of  the criminal  case so that it would not be  contended that  the employer  intended to over-reach the judicial proceedings. That observation, far from helping the respondents,  would go  to show that it would be open to the employer  to take  appropriate disciplinary acting based upon the  fact situation; whether it could be proceeded with or not  would be  left to the disciplinary authority and the facts and  circumstance obtainable  in each case required to be considered.      The  rival  contentions  give  rise  to  the  question: whether it  would be  right to stay the criminal proceedings pending departmental enquiry? This Court in Meena’s case had elaborately  considered   the  entire   case  law  including Kusheshwar Dubey’s  case relieving the necessity to consider them  once   over.  The  Bench,  to  which  one  of  us,  K. Venkataswami, J., was a member, had concluded thus:      "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      situations,   it    may   not    be      ‘desirable’,     ‘advisable’     or      ‘appropriate’ to  proceed with  the      disciplinary   enquiry    when    a      criminal   case   is   pending   on      identical charges.  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      rules can  be  enunciated  in  that      behalf. The  only ground  suggested      in   the    above   decisions    as      constituting  a  valid  ground  for      staying      the       disciplinary

3

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

    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  not  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      D.C.M. and  Tata Oil  Mills is  not      also an invariable rule. It is only      a factor  which will  go  into  the      scales    while     judging     the      advisability  or   desirability  of      staying  disciplinary  proceedings.      One of the contending consideration      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      holding high  public  officers  are      involved. They  get bogged  down on      one  or   the  other  ground,  They      hardly   even    reach   a   prompt      conclusion. That  is the reality in      spite  of   repeated   advise   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      whether      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     undesirable      elements are  thrown  out  and  any      charge of  misdemeanour is enquired      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  dealt  with      promptly according  to law.  it  is      not  also   in  the   interest   of

4

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

    administration that persons accused      of serious  misdemeanour 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   if      disciplinary proceedings,  we found      it necessary  to emphasis  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 the  various  principles  laid      down in  the decisions  referred to      above."      There is  yet another  reason.  The      approach and  the objective  in the      criminal   proceedings    and   the      disciplinary     proceedings     is      altogether distinct  and different.      In  the  disciplinary  proceedings,      the   question   is   whether   the      respondent  is   guilty   of   such      conduct as  would merit his removal      from   service    or    a    lesser      punishment, as  the  case  may  be,      whereas     in     the     criminal      proceedings,   the    question   is      whether  the   offences  registered      against him under the Prevention of      corruption  Act   (and  the  Indian      Penal Code, if any) are established      and, if  established, what sentence      should be  imposed  upon  him.  The      standard  of  proof,  the  mode  of      enquiry and the rules governing the      enquiry and trial in both the cases      are    entirely     distinct    and      different. Staying  of disciplinary      proceedings    pending     criminal      proceedings, to  repeat, should not      be  a   matter  of   course  nut  a      considered decision. Even if stayed      at  one  stage,  the  decision  may      require  reconsideration   if   the      criminal case gets unduly delayed."      We are in respectful agreement with the above view. The purpose of  departmental enquiry  and of prosecution are two different and  distinct aspects. The criminal prosecution is launched for  an offence in 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

5

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

maintain discipline  in the service and efficiency of public service.  It   would,  therefore,   be  expedient  that  the disciplinary proceedings  are  conducted  and  completed  as expeditiously as  possible. It  is not, therefore, desirable to lay  down any guidelines as inflexible rules in which the departmental proceedings  may or  may not  be stayed pending trial in  criminal case against the delinquent officer. Each case requires  to be  considered in  the backdrop of its own facts and  circumstances. There  would be  no bar to proceed simultaneously with  departmental enquiry  and  trial  of  a criminal case  unless the charge in the criminal trial is of grave nature  involving complicated  questions of  fact  and law. Offence  generally implies  infringement of  public, as distinguished from  mere  private  rights  punishable  under criminal law.  When trial  for criminal offence is conducted it should  be in accordance with proof of the offence as per the evidence  defined under  the offence as per the evidence defined under  the provisions  of the Evidence Act. Converse is the  case of  departmental  enquiry.  The  enquiry  in  a departmental proceedings  relates to  conduct of  breach  of duty of  the  delinquent  officer  to  punish  him  for  his misconduct defined  under the  relevant statutory  rules  or law. That  the strict  standard of proof or applicability of the  Evidence   Act  stands  excluded  is  a  settled  legal position.  The   enquiry  in  the  departmental  proceedings relates to  the conduct  of the delinquent officer and proof in the  that behalf  is not  as high  as in  an  offence  in criminal charge. It is seen that invariably the departmental enquiry  has   to  be   conducted  expeditiously  so  as  to effectuate  efficiency  in  public  administration  and  the criminal trial  will take  its own  course.  The  nature  of evidence in  criminal trial  is entirely  different from the departmental proceedings.  In the  former, prosecution is to prove its  case beyond reasonable doubt on the touchstone of human conduct.  The standard  of proof  in the  departmental proceedings is  not the  same as  of the criminal trial. The evidence also  is  different  from  the  standard  point  of Evidence Act.  The evidence  required  in  the  departmental enquiry is  not  regulated  by  Evidence  Act.  Under  these circumstances, what  is required  to be  seen is whether the departmental   enquiry   would   seriously   prejudice   the delinquent in  his defence  at the trial in a criminal case. It is  always a  question of  fact to  be considered in each case depending  on its  own facts and circumstances. In this case, we  have seen that the charge is failure to anticipate the accident  and prevention  thereof. It  has nothing to do with the  culpability of the offence under Sections 304A and 338 IPC.  Under these  circumstances, the High Court was not right in staying the proceedings.      The appeals are accordingly allowed. No. costs.