K. Chakkrapani vs The Panruti Agricultural Producers Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd.

Pratap Singh, J.—Petition under S.482 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to stay all further proceedings in the domestic enquiry

conducted by the respondent society against the petitioner, till the disposal of C.C. No. 314 of 1989 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Panruti.

The brief facts are:-The petitioner was working as cashier in the respondent society. On certain allegations made by the respondent against the

petitioner, a case was registered, investigated and charge sheet has been laid against the petitioner for offences punishable under Ss.408 and

477(A) of Indian Penal Code by the Sub Inspector of Police, COW, CID., Cuddalore. The respondent society initiated disciplinary proceedings

and appointed an Enquiry Officer to conduct the domestic enquiry on the basis of the report under S.65 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies

Act.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the charges levelled against the petitioner in the criminal proceeding are the same in the

charges in the domestic enquiry and if both the trial of the criminal case and domestic enquiry proceedings are allowed to go on simultaneously, the

defence to be set up by the petitioner will be seriously affected and hence stay of the proceedings of the domestic enquiry maybe granted till the

disposal of C.C.No.314 of 1989.

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that the domestic enquiry is much earlier in point of time, and that

the finding by the Criminal Court is not binding on the Enquiry Officer in the domestic enquiry and that there is no justification for stay of the

domestic enquiry till the disposal of the criminal case.

I shall first refer to the rulings relied upon by the learned counsel.

(i) In Jang Bahadur Singh Vs. Baij Nath Tiwari, the Apex Court has observed as follows:

The issue in the disciplinary proceedings is whether the employee is guilty of the charges on which it is proposed to take action against him. The

same issue may arise for decision in a civil or criminal proceeding does not bar the taking of disciplinary action. The power of taking such action is

vested in the disciplinary authority. The civil or criminal court has not such power.

(ii) In Kusheshwar Dubey v. M/s. Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. and others AIR 1988 S.C. 2218. The Apex Court has pointed out that there is no

legal bar for simultaneous proceedings being taken yet there may be cases where it would be appropriate to defer disciplinary proceedings

awaiting disposal of the criminal case. Whether in the facts and circumstances of a particular case there should or should not be such simultaneity of

the proceedings would then receive judicial consideration and the court will decide in the given circumstances of a particular case as to whether the

disciplinary proceedings should be interdicted, pending criminal trial. The Apex Court has pointed out that it is neither possible nor advisable to

evolve a hard and fast, straight-jacket formula valid for all cases and of general application without regard to the particularities of the individual

situation.

(iii) In Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen 1904 7 S.C.R. 555. In this ruling it is pointed out that it is desirable and it would be appropriate to

adopt a course of staying the domestic enquiry pending disposal of a criminal case when the charge is of a grave character, because it would be

unfair to compel the workman to disclose the defence which he may take before the criminal court.

(iv) In The Delhi Cloth and General Mills, Ltd. v. Kushat Shan 1960 23 S.C. 711 the Supreme Court has observed that it cannot be said that

principles of natural justice require that an employer must wait for the decision of the criminal trial court before taking disciplinary action against an

employee. However, if a case is of a grave nature or involves questions of fact or law, which are not simple, it would be advisable for the employer

to await the decision of the trial court, so that the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced In that case, the case against

the workman was for theft of a bi-cycle of the Head Clerk. It was held that the employer cannot be blamed for holding enquiry when the criminal

case was pending before the court.

From the above, the following principles can be deduced: (1) Pendency of court proceedings does not bar taking of disciplinary proceedings,

though the same issue may arise for decision in a Civil of Criminal Proceedings in a court (2) but yet there may be cases where it would be

appropriate to defer disciplinary proceedings awaiting disposal of the criminal case. If the case is of grave nature or involves questions of fact or

law, which are not simple, it would be advisable to await the decision of the trial court before disciplinary proceedings are proceeded with. In a

case of simple nature, the employer need not wait till the decision of the Criminal Court for holding a domestic enquiry. Hard and fast formula

cannot be evolved for all cases.

In the instant case, the petitioner is charged for offences under Ss.408 and 477(A) of Indian Penal Code, in the Criminal Court, on the allegation

that the petitioner was the godown keeper and cashier of the society would be empowered to receive and claim loan amount from the members of

the society and that from 24.2.1985 to 2.8.1985 witnesses 1 to 11 repaid the loan amount, but the petitioner accused with intend to commit fraud,

wilfully did not issue receipts for the loan amount of Rs. 28,967-30, which he had received from witnesses 1 to 11 and did not enter these

transactions in the cash book and in the stock register and delivered the paddy to them and thus misappropriated the said sum of Rs. 28,967-30.

The charge against the petitioner in the domestic enquiry is with regard to the above amount received from the members without entering it in the

accounts of the society and without giving receipts to them and in that manner causing loss to the society to an extent of Rs. 24,130/-, which

amount is exclusive of interest and rent for the godown. So substantially the allegations against the petitioner in the criminal case and in the domestic

enquiry are the same. But this is a simple case and does not involve any complicated questions of law or fact. As pointed out in the counter

affidavit, the domestic enquiry was earlier in point of time and the charge memo issued by the disciplinary authority is pending since 8.12.1986. The

alleged payments received by him were during the period from 24.2.1985 to 2.8.1985. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am clear

that this is not a case where the domestic enquiry is to be stayed till the disposal of the C.C. on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Panruti.

In view of the above, the petition which does not have any merits shall stand dismissed.