Dr. Pankaj Kumar vs Union Of India And Ors

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

The CBI conducted a trap against the applicant on 23.08.2016. On the basis of the outcome thereof, FIR No.RC1202016A0010 was registered. On its part, the Disciplinary Authority of the applicant, i.e., the General Manager of Northern Railways, Baroda House, issued a memo of charge dated 04.10.2017. This O.A. is filed with a prayer to quash the departmental enquiry initiated against the applicant by issuing the charge memo. Further prayer is that the procedure laid down in Part IV point 8 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 be followed.

The applicant contends that the very issuance of the charge memo even while the criminal case is still pending is untenable and he cannot be compelled to divulge his defence in the disciplinary proceedings, and that it would cause prejudice to him in the criminal case.

The respondents filed the counter affidavit opposing the OA. It is stated that the parameters to be applied in the criminal case on one hand and disciplinary proceedings on the other are different, and that no case is made out, either for quashing the charge memo or for deferring the disciplinary proceedings.

We heard Shri Sanjay R. Hegde, Sr. Advocate with Shri Yasharth Kaur, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri V. S. R. Krishna, learned counsel for the respondents.

The basis for initiation of criminal proceedings on the one hand and disciplinary proceedings on the other against the applicant, is a trap laid by the CBI. It is true that even where the criminal proceedings on one hand and departmental proceedings on the other were initiated in relation to the same subject matter, the disciplinary proceedings can be proceeded without hindrance, in case there exist any additional material with the department or if the determination on the charges framed against the employee does not have any bearing on the criminal case. The Judgment of the Supreme Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Another (1999) 3 SCC 679, dealt with this aspect, in detail.

However, if the charges in both the sets of proceedings are almost identical, and the nature of the evidence, i.e., the list of witnesses and list of documents are almost similar, it is essential that the departmental proceedings are deferred till the conclusion of the criminal case. Even this is subject to the rider that in case the disposal of the criminal case is taking fairly long time, there may be a possibility for resumption of the disciplinary proceedings.

In the instant case, both the proceedings have been initiated in the recent past and it is represented that the criminal proceedings are moving in a fast pace. It is not disputed that the list of witnesses in both the cases are identical. Same witnesses are cited in both the proceedings. Under these circumstances, though no case is made out for quashing the charge memo, the disciplinary proceedings need to be stalled as of now.

We, therefore, dispose of the OA directing that the disciplinary proceedings shall be deferred till the criminal proceedings are concluded, or for a period of two years, whichever is earlier.

There shall be no order as to costs.