AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.K. Trivedi, J.—The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from proceeding further with the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner vide charge-sheet dated 25.10.2013 on the ground that in a trap case the petitioner was arrested by the Special Police, Lokayukt Organization, Bhopal and a challan is filed against him in the Court of Special Judge for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. At the same time, after filing of the challan and framing of charges against the petitioner, a charge-sheet is issued to him by the Bank on 25.10.2013 making allegations with respect to the very same offences, as also certain other charges. It is contended that in case the departmental enquiry is conducted, the defence which the petitioner is required to take in the criminal prosecution, would be exposed and in that event prejudice would be caused to the petitioner. Therefore, till the criminal prosecution is decided, further proceedings in the departmental enquiry may be deferred.
The law in this respect is well settled. In various cases it has been held that the service misconduct is something else, which is not required to be joined with criminal offence committed by any employee. Even while in service, if a criminal offence is committed, the same is required to be tried separately and at the same time for the service misconduct, a departmental enquiry can be conducted. Only Charge No. 1 leveled against the petitioner is relating to the criminal offence of accepting bribe, which is being tried by the Special Judge but the fact that there were certain other service misconducts committed by the petitioner, certain tempering of the documents is done for which Charge No. 2 and 3 are levelled against him, is required to be examined only and only in a departmental enquiry.
That being so, by no stretch of imagination could it be said that the defence of the petitioner would be exposed and that would cause prejudice to him in the criminal prosecution. Apart from this, if the petitioner is found guilty in the criminal prosecution even then service misconduct can be proved by recording evidence in the departmental enquiry and for which punishment can be imposed on him as per the law and Regulations of the Bank. That being so, stay of the departmental enquiry is not warranted in any manner. Reliance placed by the petitioner in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Another, , is wholly misconceived inasmuch as judgment in the criminal trial would not prejudice the departmental enquiry proceedings.
No case is made out to interfere in the departmental enquiry proceedings. The writ petition is dismissed.