WP/1242/2000 of R.S.Reddy, Vs The Depot Manager on 26 December 2005

Order:

By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a Mandamus declaring the suspensionorder and charge sheet No.P1/25(5)/99-WNP, dated 10.09.1999 issued byrespondent No.1 as illegal and arbitrary.

The case of the petitioner is that based on the report of the checking officials, theSub-Inspector of police, Peddamandadi P.S., registered a case against him in CrimeNo.41 of 1999 and filed a charge sheet on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of FirstClass, Wanaparthy under Section 332 IPC. Pursuant to that, respondent No.1 also charge sheeted/suspended the petitioner vide proceedings No.P1/25(5)/99-WNP,dated 10.09.1999, for which he has submitted his explanation on 03.12.1999, andnot being satisfied with his explanation, respondent No.1 referred the matter torespondent No.2 for conducting a detailed enquiry. The grievance of the petitioner isthat the charges in the departmental proceedings as well as in the criminalproceedings are one and the same, and therefore, the criminal proceedings arelikely to be prejudicially affected by the parallel departmental enquiry if the same isallowed to be continued. Hence, the writ petition.

A counter affidavit is filed by the respondent-Corporation stating that the checkingofficials, by name K.N. Goud, E.26246, TTI RES/MBNR and M. Govardhan,E.43223, TI.III of GDL Depot vide their report dated 02.09.1999 and 03.09.1999reported that on 02.09.1999 they stopped the bus AP 9Z-6223 operating on the routeWanaparthy – Chinnamandadi at stage No.2/3 and entered into the bus to check thetickets of the passengers, but the petitioner did not allow them to check the tickets ofthe passengers and picked up a quarrel with them and assaulted K.N. Goud andabused him in filthy language. Hence, the said checking officials lodged a complaintat Peddamandadi Police Station against the petitioner, which was registered inCrime No.41 of 1999. Later, the petitioner went away in the middle of the service andhas remitted the bus cash on 03.09.1999 instead 02.09.1999. Basing on the aboveserious lapses on the part of the petitioner, he was kept under suspension and acharge sheet was issued to him vide proceedings dated 10.09.1999 calling uponhim to submit his explanation to the charges leveled against him. The petitioner,having received the said suspension order and charge sheet, submitted hisexplanation on 03.12.1999 and the same was forwarded to the Chief Inspector(Enquiries), Mahabubnagar. Since the charges in the disciplinary proceedings andthe criminal case are different, the departmental enquiry has nothing to do with thetrial in a criminal case.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counselfor the respondent-Corporation.

The main contention of the petitioner in this writ petition is that as criminalcase is pending against him, the parallel departmental enquiry is not allowed to becontinued, which would cause prejudice to the criminal proceedings. The same cannot be accepted inasmuch as the Apex Court in LALIT POPLI Vs. CANARABANK AND OTHERS held that the Criminal and Departmental proceedings areentirely different and the standard of proof, the mode of enquiry and the rulesgoverning the enquiry and trial are conceptually different. The relevant paragraphreads as under:

“It is fairly well settled that the approach and objective in criminalproceedings and the disciplinary proceedings are altogether distinct anddifferent. In the disciplinary proceedings the preliminary question is whetherthe employee is guilty of such conduct as would merit action against him,whereas in criminal proceedings the question is whether the offencesregistered against him are established and if established what sentenceshould be imposed upon him. The standard of proof, the mode of enquiry andthe rules governing the enquiry and trial are conceptually different. (SeeState of Rajasthan Vs. B.K. Meena) In case of disciplinary enquiry thetechnical rules of evidence have no application. The doctrine of “proofbeyond doubt” has no application. Preponderance of probabilities and somematerial on record are necessary to arrive at the conclusion whether or notthe delinquent has committed misconduct.”

Further, the Apex Court in AJIT KUMAR NAG Vs. GENERAL MANAGER(PJ), INDIAN OIL CORPN. LTD, held that the two proceedings, criminal anddepartmental, are entirely different and they operate in different fields and havedifferent objectives. The relevant portion reads as under; “……….The two proceedings, criminal and departmental, are entirelydifferent. They operate in different fields and have different objectives.Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on theoffender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquentdepartmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with the service rules.In a criminal trial, incriminating statement made by the accused in certaincircumstances or before certain officers is totally inadmissible in evidence.Such strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmentalproceedings. The degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction isdifferent from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission ofdelinquency. The rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the twoproceedings is also not similar. In criminal law, burden of proof is on theprosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of theaccused “beyond reasonable doubt”, he cannot be convicted by a court oflaw. In a departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed onthe delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of “preponderance ofprobability”……”

In view of the above settled position of law, pendency of criminal case is not abar to conduct a departmental enquiry. The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

Date: 26.12.2005

Tvk/Nsr

___________________

N.V. RAMANA, J.