AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This writ petition is filed questioning the action of Respondent No.5 in issuing show cause notice of removal dated 01.10.2026 as illegal and arbitrary.
The Petitioner had joined APSRTC as a Driver in the year 1998 and his services were duly regularized in the year 2000. While the petitioner was performing his duties as Driver-cum-Conductor on Bangalore One Man Service (Vehicle No.AP02-Z-0533, excise individuals entered the vehicle and called upon the Petitioner to open the luggage boot/trunk at Shivakoti Temple on the outskirts of Ananthapuramu town. On opening the trunk, the officials questioned the Petitioner regarding ownership of certain white plastic urea bags and while this conversation was ongoing, two passengers from the bus jumped off and fled.
On instructions of the Excise Officials, the Petitioner drove the vehicle to the destination and after depositing the cash, came to the Excise Police Station and was informed that the luggage unloaded at Shivakoti Temple contained defence/military liquor brought by the escaped offenders. The Petitioner was coerced to sign on blank white papers which were converted into fabricated confessional statement and a panchanama and was arrayed as an accused in the criminal case. The Petitioner, after securing bail in the criminal case, met the Superintendent (traffic) during the preliminary enquiry and detailed the exact sequence of events. However, the Respondent authorities placed the Petitioner under suspension with effect from 30.09.2025 by order dated 10.10.2025.
Subsequently, a departmental charge sheet dated 10.10.2025 was issued to the Petitioner, whereupon two Articles of charges were framed. The Petitioner thereupon gave a detailed explanation on 03.11.2025 denying the charges. Notwithstanding the detailed explanation of the Petitioner, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and the enquiry was completed without adhering to the principles of natural justice. The issue with regard to stay of departmental enquiry pending criminal case was available to the Petitioner before participating in the departmental enquiry. After the Petitioner gave written statement of defence, an enquiry was conducted and after submitting the enquiry report, the present objections were raised with regard to simultaneous proceedings. Inspector and his subordinates as a witness to the enquiry, the Respondent No. 7 failed to exercise his powers and the enquiry was closed on the basis of available record and an enquiry report was submitted holding that the charges against the Petitioner stood proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The enquiry report was furnished to the Petitioner and Petitioner submitted his explanation thereto on 22.08.2026. Thereafter, a show cause notice of removal from service dated 01.10.2026 was issued to the Petitioner as to why the Petitioner should not be removed from service. It is in that context the present writ petition is filed.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the indication of the punishment in the show cause notice is a clear marker that the authorities have decided to impose a major penalty on the petition and calling for explanation is a farcical exercise. Apart from that, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that as a criminal case is pending on the very same issue, the Respondent-authorities ought not to have proceeded with the departmental enquiry, since the same would prejudice the defence of the Petitioner in the criminal case.
Learned counsel for the Respondent would submit that the departmental proceedings in criminal case are totally different and even otherwise the defence to the Petitioner was available before participating in the enquiry and not at this stage. Learned counsel further submitted that the indication of punishment in the notice is only a tentative punishment and not conclusive.
Heard Sri V.Sreemannayarayana, learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-II for the Respondents.
The plea of the Petitioner that simultaneous proceedings ought not to have been conducted by the Respondent-authorities would merit consideration in a case where the delinquent raises the objection before participating in the departmental enquiry. In the present case, the Petitioner submitted his statement of defence to the charge memorandum and had willingly participated in the departmental enquiry. The stay of departmental enquiries pending criminal case is based on two fundamental principles i.e. the defence of the individual would stand prejudiced on account of revealing of defence and secondly, the criminal case should be a grave offence involving complicated questions of fact and law. Both these conditions should be satisfied before seeking stay of departmental proceedings. In M. Paul Antony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.,1 the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized specified grounds on which the departmental enquiry could be stayed and the above two principles are the core of the same. Paragraph 22 is extracted below:
22.The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are:
(i)Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately.
(ii)If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case.
(iii)Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge-sheet.
(iv)The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed.
(v)If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest.
As mentioned above, in the present case, the Petitioner had submitted his statement of defence and having participated in the departmental enquiry, cannot plead prejudice in the criminal case at this point of time. Apart from that the offence is not grave and nothing is pointed out as to what are the complicated facts and law involved in a criminal case to stay the departmental enquiry. Therefore, this contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner has no merit.
Coming to the plea of the Petitioner that the show cause notice is prejudged as punishment of removal from service is specified in the show cause notice also has no merit for the reason that the impugned notice was issued after the enquiry report was communicated to the Petitioner and after taking note of the objections of the Petitioner to the enquiry report.
For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the Respondents to consider the objections of the Petitioner and pass a detailed, well-reasoned order. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed.
Footnotes
- 1.(1999) 3 SCC 679