Kailash Batham (since dead) through legal representative Smt. Vidhya Batham vs Secretary to the Home Ministry and Others

Sujoy Paul, J.—This petition is transferred from the M.P. Administrative Tribunal. During pendency of the petition, the original applicant/petitioner expired. Thus, his widow was substituted as legal representative. This petition is directed against the punishment order which is endorsed in the service record of the petitioner. It is contended that by impugned action the respondents have withheld increment with cumulative effect which is a major punishment. Initially in the original application before the Tribunal it was contended that petitioner was subjected to a criminal case and for similar allegations the disciplinary action was also taken against him. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioner could not have been subjected to disciplinary action during pendency of a criminal case. Shri D.K. Katare submits that if the petitioner was required to disclose his defence in the departmental enquiry, it would have caused grave prejudice to him. He heavily relied on the pleadings which were inserted in the petition by way of amendment as paragraphs A, B and C. On the strength of these paragraphs, it is contended that the action is bad in law. Prayer is opposed by Shri Pravin Newaskar, learned Deputy Government Advocate.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

This is settled in law that disciplinary proceedings and criminal case can run simultaneously. Only in very peculiar circumstances and in rare cases the disciplinary proceedings can be stayed. However, one such test for the same is to examine whether the disciplinary action and criminal case are founded upon the exactly similar facts and circumstances. In the present case, the petitioner has neither filed the challan nor the charge sheet of the disciplinary proceedings to enable this Court to examine whether both are founded upon the same facts. Thus, this contention cannot be accepted.

Ground (A) is based on the criminal case from which the petitioner is allegedly acquitted. However, at the cost of repetition it is made clear that since there is no material to examine whether charge sheet in the criminal case and departmental enquiry are based on the same facts, no benefit of the judgment (page 15) can be given to the petitioner. Apart from this, the judgment shows that the petitioner was given benefit of doubt regarding the offence under Sections 323 and 325 IPC. For these reasons also, the action of the department cannot be declared as illegal.

In Ground (C) it is contended that the punishment could have been inflicted only by the appointing authority as per M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. The petitioner was a class-3 non-ministerial employee of police department. His services are governed by M.P. Police Regulations framed under the Indian Police Act, which is clear from the Schedule appended to the CCA Rules, 1966. As per the Police Regulation, the punishment is inflicted by the competent authority. Thus, I find no reason and merit which warrants interference in this petition. Petition is bereft of merits and is hereby dismissed.