ivil Appeal No 3129of 1988 From the Judgment and Order dated 771987 of the Patna High Court in Civil Revision No 128 of 1987 R
RK Jain Rakesh K Khanna and RP Singh for the Appellant
RN Sachthey and Anip Sachthey for the Respondents
The following Order of the Court was delivered ORDER Special leave granted
The appellant is an employee in the Balihari Colliery of the Respondent No 1 and in 1986 was working as an electrical helper
On the allegation that he physically assaulted a supervising officer by name SK Mandal he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings as also a criminal prosecution
Since the disciplinary proceeding as also the criminal trial were taken simultaneously the appellant filed a civil action in the court of Munsif at Dhanbad asking for injunction against the disciplinary action PG NO 823 pending criminal trial
On 6121986 the Munsif made an order staying further proceedings in the disciplinary action till disposal of the criminal case
The appeal of the Respondent No 1 against the order of learned Munsif was dismissed on 31st March 1987 by the appellate court
Thereupon the Respondent No 1 moved the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction
The High Court by its order dated 771987 held First information report was lodged against the opposite party appellant and the same was pending before the competent court
Meanwhile the petitioners respondents started departmental proceeding against the opposite party
The opposite party filed a suit before the trial court for declaration that appointment of the Enquiry Officer was illegal and for restraining the petitioners permanently from continuing with the departmental proceeding during the pendency of the criminal case
That was allowed by the trial court and confirmed by the lower court
There is no bar for an employer to proceed with the departmental proceeding with regard to the same allegation for which a criminal case is pending
I am therefore of the opinion that the courts below were wrong in granting injunction in favour of the opposite party
In the result this application is allowed and the order impugned is set aside
 According to Mr Jain for the appellant the legal position settled by this Court supported the stand that the disciplinary action had to be stayed till the criminal case was over
He relied upon the decisions in The Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd vs Kushal Bhan  and Tata Oil Mills Co Ltd vs Its Workmen  He also referred in the course of his submission to the decisions of different High Courts in support of his propositions
Two cases out of the several ones of the High Courts he relied upon are Khusi Ram vs Union of India and Project Manager ONGC vs Lal Chand Wazir Chand Chandna Pathak CJ as he then was In the Himachal case indicated that fair play required the postponing of the criminal trial and Thakkar J as our learned brother then was in the Gujarat case had also taken a similar view
PG NO 824 We would like to point out that there are also authorities in support of the position that there is nothing wrong in parallel proceedings being taken one by way of the disciplinary proceeding and the other in the criminal court
Reference may be made to decision of this Court in Jang Bahadur Singh vs Baij Nath Tiwari 1969 I SCR 134 and some decisions of High Courts such as Rama PC vs Superintendent of Police Kolar  Anr AIR  Ali Mohd  Ors
vs Chairman TA  C Udhampur  Moulindra Singh vs The Deputy Commissioner  Ors l564 and Shaikh Kasim vs Superintendent of Police Office Chingletut Mr Jain contended that we should settle the law in a straight jacket formula as judicial opinion appeared to be conflicting
We do not propose to hazard such a step as that would create greater hardship and individual situations may not be available to be met and thereby injustice is likely to ensue
In the Delhi Cloth  General Mills  case supra it was pointed out by this Court It is true that very often employers stay enquiries pending the decision of the criminal trial courts and that is fair but we cannot say that principles of natural justice require that an employer must wait for the decision at least of the criminal trial court before taking action against an employee
In Shri Bimal Kanta Mukherjee vs Ms News mans Printing Works l956l LAC 188 this was the view taken by the Labour Appellate Tribunal
We may however add that if the case is of a grave nature or involves questions of fact or law which are not simple it would be advisable for the employer to await the decision of the trial court so that the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced   
In Tata Oil Mills  case supra Gajendragadkar CJ spoke for a three Judge Bench thus There is yet another point which remains to be considered
The Industrial Tribunal appears to have taken the view that since criminal proceedings had been started against Raghavan the domestic enquiry should have been stayed pending the final disposal of the said criminal PG NO 825 proceedings
As this Court has held in the Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd vs Kushal Bhan it is desirable that if the incident giving rise to a charge framed against a workman in a domestic enquiry is being tried in a criminal court the employer should stay the domestic enquiry pending the final disposal of the criminal case  
In Jang Bahadur s case supra this Court said The issue in the disciplinary proceedings is whether the employee is guilty of the charges on which it is proposed to take action against him
The same issue may arise for decision in a civil or criminal proceeding pending in a court
But the pendency of the court proceeding does not bar the taking of disciplinary action
The power of taking such action is vested in the disciplinary authority
The civil or criminal court has no such power
The initiation and continuation of disciplinary proceedings in good faith is not calculated to obstruct or interfere with the course of justice in the pending court proceeding
The employee is free to move the court for an order restraining the continuance of the disciplinary proceedings
If he obtains a stay order a wilful violation of the order would of course amount to contempt of court
In the absence of a stay order the disciplinary authority is free to exercise its lawful powers
The view expressed in the three cases of this Court seem to support the position that while there could be no legal bar for simultaneous proceedings being taken
yet there may be cases where it would be appropriate to defer disciplinary proceedings awaiting disposal of the criminal case In the latter class of cases it would be open to the delinquent employee to seek such an order of stay or injunction from the Court
Whether in the facts and circumstances of a particular case there should or should not be such simultaneity of the proceedings would then receive judicial consideration and the Court will decide in the given circumstances of a particular case as to whether the disciplinary proceedings should be interdicted pending criminal trial As we have already stated that it is neither possible nor advisable to evolve a hard and fast straight jacket formula valid for all cases and of general application without regard to the particularities of the individual situation
For the disposal of the present case we do not think it necessary to say anything more particularly when we do not intend to lay down any general guideline
PG NO 826 In the instant case the criminal action and the disciplinary proceedings are grounded upon the same set of facts
We are of the view that the disciplinary proceedings should have been stayed and the High Court was not right in interfering with the trial court s order of injunction which had been affirmed in appeal
The appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court is vacated and that of the trial court as affirmed in appeal is restored
The appellant shall be entitled to costs
Hearing fee is assessed at Rs2000
We would like to point out that for the first time in this Court the enquiry report in the disciplinary proceedings was produced
We express no view about it
MLA Appeal allowed


Summary:
The appellant company owned jute mills situated in Raigarh in the State of Madhya Pradesh and it had to bring raw material from many railway booking stations outside the State as there was no other means of transport both for bringing jute to the mills and for carrying the finished products to ports for export to foreign countries the jute mills in West Bengal and Madras had facilities for direct shipment of their goods without carriage by rail to the ports and so the prices of the products of the appellant could not be brought down to the competitive level for the purposes of export out of or sale in India
The appellant filed a complaint before the Railway Rates Tribunal under section 41 of the Indian Railways Act 1890 on the allegations that the Railway administration had contravened the provisions of section 28 of the Act in that it had offered special rates for certain stations in its zone to Kanpur which were cheaper than those that were charged between Raigarh and some other railway stations and that the charges levied for the freight of the appellant s goods were unreasonable and excessive
The Tribunal found that competition between the goods of the Kanpur mills and the appellant s goods had not been alleged or proved in the present case Held that the mere fact that the goods of the Kanpur mills are transported at more favourable rates would not attract the provisions of section 28 of the Act unless there is competition between the goods of the Kanpur mills and the appellant s goods and undue preference has been shown by the railway administration to the appellant s competitor
Nitshill and Lesmahagow Coal Company vs The Caladonian Railway Company 1874 11 Railway and Canal Traffic Cases 39 Denaby Main Colliery Company vs Manchester Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway Company  Lancashire Patent Fuel Company Limited vs London and North Western Railway Company 1904 XII Railway and Canal Traffic Cases 77 and Lever Brothers Limited vs Midland Railway Company 1909 XIII Railway and Canal Traffic Cases 301 relied on
Held further that in considering the question as to the reasonableness of the railway freight the relevant factors would mainly be the working costs of the railway administration and 237 other material circumstances and neither the geographical location of the appellant on account of which it has to incur additional expenses of transport nor the cost incurred in producing the jute goods nor the commodity prices prevailing in the market have any relevance