Laxminarayana Gowda and Others vs Government of Karnataka and Others

R.S. Chauhan, J.—The petitioner has challenged the order dated 6.9.2015 passed by the Additional Registrar Enquiries-8, respondent No. 2, whereby the learned Additional Registrar Enquiries-8 has declined to stay the continuation of the departmental enquiry being conducted against the petitioner.

Briefly the facts of the case are that on 29.10.1976 petitioner No. 1, Laxminarayana Gowda had joined the services of Mangalore Mahanagara Palike on the post of Office Superintendent. On 20.9.2004 Petitioner No. 2, Ramu, joined the services of Mangalore Mahanagara Palike as Second Division Assistant (''SDA''). On 1.7.2010, one Mr. Prabhananda Shenoy, claiming himself to be representing one Mr. Balakrishna and Mr. Ismail, lodged a complaint against the petitioners and alleged that they are demanding a bribe from him. On the basis of the said complaint, trap proceedings were carried out. A criminal case, namely, Special Case No. 34/2011 was filed against the petitioners, before the District & Sessions Judge, Mangalore, for offences under Section 7 , Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

On 10.9.2012, the Secretary, Urban Development Department decided to a hold an enquiry against the petitioners in respect of the alleged incident of demand and acceptance of bribe. Therefore, the said Secretary entrusted the holding of enquiry to Hon''ble Upa-Lokayukta. Thereafter, the Hon''ble Upa-Lokayukta, in turn, entrusted the holding of disciplinary enquiry to the Addl. Registrar of Enquiries-3. Subsequently, the case was transferred to Addl. Registrar of Enquiries-8. Petitioners appeared before the respondent No. 2 and denied the charges. They also filed their reply to the charges before the Addl. Registrar of Enquiries-8. Since the petitioners wanted to get the departmental enquiry stayed, they filed a writ petition before this Court, namely, Writ Petition No. 11486 & 11487/2014. By order dated 14.7.2014, this Court directed the petitioners to file an application before the respondent No. 2. They were granted the liberty that in case the respondents were to reject the application for staying the departmental enquiry, they could approach this Court. Consequently, on 22.7.2014, the petitioners submitted the applications before the respondent No. 1 seeking to stay the disciplinary proceedings. However, by order dated 6.9.2014, the respondent No. 2 has rejected the petitioners'' applications. Hence, this petition before this Court.

Mr. Sarat Chandra Bijai, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that in case the departmental enquiry is permitted to be continued, the petitioners would be compelled to disclose their defence. This, in fact, will endanger the defence that they are likely to take up before the Criminal Court. Therefore, the learned Addl. Registrar ought to have stayed the departmental enquiry during the pendency of the criminal trial.

On the other hand, Mr. Devraj, the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3, has strenuously contended that criminal trial and departmental enquiry are two distinct and separate proceedings. Unless the Criminal case raises complicated questions of law and fact, the departmental enquiry should not be stayed. Since the petitioners have already submitted their reply to the charges levelled against them before the Addl. Registrar of Enquiries, they have already revealed their defence. Thus, no fruitful purpose will be served by staying the departmental enquiry against the petitioners.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

It is, indeed, trite to state that a departmental enquiry and a criminal trial are two distinct proceedings. In fact, the extent of burden of proof in both the proceedings is different as different yardsticks need to be applied in the two proceedings. In the case of Stanzen Toyotetsu India P. Ltd. Vs. Girish V. and Others, , the Hon''ble Supreme Court was of the opinion that until and unless complicated questions of law and fact arise in the criminal trial, the departmental enquiry should not be stayed.

The Addl. Registrar of Eqnuiries-8 is certainly justified in concluding that once the reply to the charge was submitted by the petitioners, they have revealed their defence. Therefore, their entire contention that the defence will be jeopardised, is unacceptable. In the view of this Court, the conclusion drawn by the Addl. Registrar of Enquiries is a correct one. For, it is common knowledge that the moment the cross-examination of a witnesses begins, the defence of the accused stands revealed. Even if the defence has been revealed by filing the reply to the defence, no prejudice is likely to be caused to the petitioners.

For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order. The petitions are, therefore, devoid of any merit. They are, hereby, dismissed.