J. Elango vs State of Tamil Nadu and The Special Officer, Vizukkam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank

AR. Lakshmanan, J.—Heard Mr. V.K. Rajagopalan learned counsel for the petitioner. The above writ petition has been filed for the

following relief:

... to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ forbearing the respondents 1 and 2 from

proceeding with the Departmental enquiry pursuant to the charge sheet, dated 12-12-1995 on the file of the third respondent pending criminal

proceedings against the petitioner herein and...

The petitioner was appointed as a salesman in Theevanur Village Co-operative Shop, by order, dated 30-11-1987 by the Special Officer,

Vizukkam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank, the third respondent herein. One Susila gave a complaint in the ellimedupattu Police Station,

V.R.P. District, stating that the petitioner refused to marry her and also cheated her. Accordingly, as per the complaint given, a case under

Sections 417 and 376 of Indian Penal Code was registered against the petitioner in Crime No. 232 of 1995 in the said Police Station.

Subsequently, the petitioner was arrested and released on bail. Since the petitioner was arrested and a criminal case also was pending against him,

the third respondent suspended the petitioner on 4.11.1995, on the ground that a criminal case was pending against him. Further, the respondents

are now taking steps to proceed with the departmental enquiry against the petitioner. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the

respondents have to wait till the criminal case is over and if the criminal case is ended in acquittal, then there is no need or necessity for the

department to proceed against the petitioner departmentally. To proceed with the departmental inquiry against the petitioner, pending a criminal

case, is highly illegal and unwarranted. The petitioner also filed a Writ Miscellaneous Petition No. 7297 of 1996 to stay all the departmental

enquiry pursuant to the charge sheet dated 12-12-1995 on the file of the third respondent. It is argued by learned. counsel for the petitioner that

since the criminal action and the disciplinary proceedings are grounded upon the same set of facts, the disciplinary proceedings should be stayed.

In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner cited a decision in PJ. Sunderrajan & another v. Unit Trust of India & another (1993

LLJ 168), wherein the Supreme Court held that the departmental enquiry should be stayed till the trial before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Madras is completed and that if the respondents so choose, they can proceed with the enquiry after the Judgment is rendered by trial Court. By

the above said order, the Supreme Court had reversed the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in P.J. Sunder Rajan Vs. Unit Trust of India and

Another, . In my opinion, the Judgment of the Supreme Court is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand and is

distinguishable on facts. To a query by this Court to the learned counsel for the petitioner in regard to the stage of the criminal case, he answered

that except registering a criminal case with the Police Station, the respondents have not taken any further steps. The matter is still under

investigation. The criminal case was registered only with the Police Station as Crime No.232 of 1995 and the matter has not been so far taken on

file by criminal court. It is also not in dispute that the case registered by the police station is still under investigation and pending at FIR stage and no

charge sheet has been filed yet. In my opinion, so long as the criminal proceedings are not pending before any competent criminal court, the writ

petitioner, cannot have any grievance in participating in the departmental enquiry. It may be true that the charges framed in the domestic enquiry

and the charges mentioned in the FIR are one and the same. Since the criminal case is only pending investigation and no charge sheet has been

drawn against the employee by the criminal court, the continuation of the disciplinary proceedings, in my opinion, is perfectly in order and it is not

illegal, as urged by learned counsel for the petitioner. If the domestic enquiry is to be deferred till the outcome of the criminal case which is yet to

commence, the respondents will have to unnecessarily incur heavy financial loss by way of subsistence allowance to the petitioner without

extracting any work from him. The Supreme Court decision, cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, is a case which stands on a different

footing. In that case, both the charge memo and the criminal charges were grounded on the same set of facts and the criminal case was pending

trial on the file of the criminal court. In fact, the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Khuseswar v. M/s. Bharat Cooks Limited (( 1988 II

LLN 912) observed that the Judgment in each case depended upon the facts, and circumstances of cash case. In S. John v. Indian Airlines ((1992

I LLN 121), Srinivasan, J. in a similar circumstance held that it is certainly open to the management to continue the departmental proceedings

without waiting for the completion of the criminal proceedings to find out whether the petitioners are guilty of the charges made against diem. In the

decision reported in ((1988 (II) LLN 912) (cited supra), the Supreme Court has observed that the judicial opinion in matters like this appeared to

be conflicting and the Supreme Court has also referred to the authorities in support of the position that there is nothing wrong in parallel

proceedings being taken, one by way of disciplinary proceedings and the other in the criminal Court. Therefore, applying the facts and

circumstances of this case that no charge sheet has been drawn against, the employee by the criminal court in the instant case, I hold that the

continuation of the disciplinary proceedings is not illegal and that it is absolutely necessary. The respondent- management is at liberty to proceed

with the disciplinary proceedings against the writ petitioner in accordance with law. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed at the admission

stage. Consequently, Writ Miscellaneous Petition No. 7297 of 1996 is also dismissed.