IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 820 of 2009 Between: B. Mahanta, S/o. late Chandrakanth Mahanta, Unit, H.P.C.L. Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Inspector General (Personal), C.I.S.F., Directorate (MHA) Block No.13, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi -03. 2 The Inspector General, CISF, SS Head Quarters, Chennai. 3 The Senior Commandant, CISF, NDRF, Battalion Arakkonam, Post Suraksha Camus, Vellore District, Tamilnadu. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue writ or direction preferably writ of Mandamus declaring the order issued in proceedings No. V- 15014/CISF/NDRFBn(A)/Disc/2008/10525 dt. 4-12-2008 issued by respondents No.3 without communicating the orders of the respondent No. 1 & 2 dt. 1-12-2008 and 12-11-2008 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to decision of Hon'ble Court that departmental enquiry is liable to be postponed till completion of criminal trial and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.R.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : ORDER The petitioner is a Deputy Commandant, CISF Unit, HPCL/VP, Vizag. Presently, he is under suspension pending criminal case registered against him. He was trapped by CBI Team while he was working at CISF Unit. A case was registered and after due investigation a charge sheet came to be filed before the Special Judgment for CBI Cases, Vizag. The learned Special Judge took the case on file as CC and it is stated to be pending trial. Departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner basing on the self same allegations. The petitioner made a representation to the respondents to keep the departmental proceedings in abeyance pending trial of the criminal case. His request came to be rejected on 12.11.2008 and the same has been communicated to him vide proceedings dated 4.12.2008. Since the authorities are proceeding with the departmental enquiry, the petitioner approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue writ, order or direction declaring the order issued in proceedings dated 4.4.2008 by the Senior Commandant, CISF,NDRF, Battalion Arakkonam-3rd respondent is arbitrary and illegal. When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri A.Raja Sekhara Reddy, learned Assistant Solicitor General received noticed on behalf of the respondents. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the criminal case and the departmental proceedings are based on self same allegations and therefore, the departmental proceedings are required to be kept in abeyance pending trial. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in A.Peddanna v. Divisional Security Commissioner, RPF[1] and S.A.Basha v., Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force[2]. Learned Assistant Solicitor General submits that there is no straitjacket formula as to in which case the departmental proceedings are to be stayed pending the criminal case and it all dependents upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Jain vs. M.P.State Coop. Marketing Federation Ltd and others[3] and Noida Enterpreneurs Association vs. Noida and others[4]. The learned Assistant Solicitor General laid much emphasis at para 14 of the judgment in 2nd cited which reads as hereunder: “In Capt M. Paul Anthony v. Bharati Gold Mines Ltd[5] this Court indicated some of the fact situations which would govern the question whether departmental proceedings should be kept in abeyance during pendency of a criminal case. In para 22 conclusions which are deducible from various decisions were summarized. They are as follows: “22…(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.” In the 2nd cited case, the Supreme Court directed the petitioner therein to make an appropriate application to the departmental authorities to keep the proceedings in abeyance till the conclusion of the criminal proceedings. If such prayer is made, the same shall be considered in the light of the principles set out by this Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd v. Sarvesh Berry[6] and Uttaranchal RTC v. Mansaram Nainwal[7]. Indeed, the petitioner made such a representation to the Deputy Inspector General (personal) CISF-1st respondent to keep the departmental proceedings in abeyance pending the criminal case. The 1st respondent disposed of the said representation on 12.11.2008, which reads as hereunder: “Please refer to your letter No.V- 15014/GO’s/L&R/SS/2008-2514, dated 20th October, 2008, on the subject cited above. The representation dated 6.10.2008 submitted by Shri B.Mahanta, Dy.Commandant (U/S) of CISF NDRF Bn. Arakkonam requesting to postpone the departmental enquiry till completion of the legal proceedings initiated by CBI has been considered and not acceded to by the competent authority. Shri B.Mahanta, DC (U/S) may be advised to submit his written statement of defence, if any, within 15 days failing which further action in the matter would be taken as per the rules.” Of course, it is the grievance of the petitioner that the letter has not been communicated. Whatsoever may be, the said letter does not indicate the reasons for rejecting the request made by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to re-consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till then the departmental proceedings shall be kept in abeyance. ___________ 28-01-2009 rkk [1] 2006(4) ALT 631 [2] 2008(4) ALT 422 [3] (2005) 10 SCC 477 [4] (2007) 10 Supreme Court Cases 385 [5] (1999) 3 SCC 679 [6] (2005) 10 SCC 471 [7] (2006) 6 SCC 366