Nirode Sutradhar vs State Of Tripura And 3 Others

Petitioner is Enrolled Follower (Cook) working in Tripura State Rifles. On 27.08.2020, a departmental charge sheet was served on him. This charge sheet contained one charge namely, that at the time of his entry in service, the petitioner had furnished a fake/forged SC certificate for the vacancy of Enrolled Follower (Cook) in 8th Bn. of TSR. He had thereby committed misconduct and he was liable to be punished under Section 12(1) of Tripura State Rifles Act, 1983.

On 03.08.2020, an FIR was also lodged before Khowai Police Station alleging that the petitioner had secured employment in TSR claiming to be a SC candidate by forging his caste certificate.

The petitioner, therefore, requests that the departmental inquiry may be stayed till the criminal case is over. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the departmental as well as criminal proceedings arise out of the same incident, contain the same allegations and rely on same set of documents and witnesses. The departmental inquiry should therefore be stayed till the criminal trial is over. In support of his contentions, counsel relied on following decisions:

(i) In case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 67.

(ii) In case of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited vs. Girish V. and others, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 636.

(iii) In case of Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. M.G. Vittal Rao, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 442.

(iv) In case of State Bank of India and others vs. Neelam Nag and another, reported in (2016) 9 SCC 491.

I do not think that the petitioner has made out any ground for stay of the departmental proceeding still criminal case is over. On several occasions Supreme Court has held that departmental proceedings and criminal case operate in different fields and proceed on the basis of entirely different requirements of nature of proof. The purpose of a criminal case is to punish the guilty and that departmental inquiry is to award punishment in case a Government servant is found to have committed misconduct. It is reiterated that unless the case involves grave charges and extremely complicated facts and law, the departmental inquiry should not be stayed pending a criminal trial even though the same may arise out of the same incident. It is stressed that there is no bar in the law in the departmental proceedings continuing pending a criminal trial. A reference in this respect can be made to the decisions of the Supreme Court in case of Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs. Mohd. Yousuf Miya, etc. reported in AIR 1997 SC 2232, in case of State of Rajasthan vs. B.K. Meena and others, reported in AIR 1997 SC 13, in case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679, in case of Kendriya Vidyalaa Sangathan and others vs. T. Srinivas, reported in 2004 AIR SCW 4558, in case of Delhi Transport Corporation vs. Sardar Singh, reported in 2004 AIR SCW 4622 and in case of State Bank of India and others vs. Neelam Nag and another, reported in (2016) 9 SCC 491.

The common thread running through all these judgments as also those cited by the counsel for the petitioner is that there is no bar on departmental proceedings continuing when criminal trial is pending. Only when it is shown that the case involves grave charges and complicated questions of facts and law, the Court may suspend a departmental proceeding till criminal trial is over.

However, in the present case, none of these factors are present. The allegation against the petitioner in the departmental inquiry is that by forging the caste certificate he secured his employment against a reserved vacancy and thereby committed misconduct. The charge in the criminal case is of forgery of a document which is punishable under Sections 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code. It is reiterated by the Supreme Court on number of occasions that a departmental inquiry must be completed as expeditiously as possible so that the Government servant if found guilty of misconduct, he is visited the punishment commensurate with the proved charge. On the other hand, if he is innocent, he must be exonerated and his reputation should be restored.

Under the circumstances, petition is dismissed.