*THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICLE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.25582 of 2008 % 17.12.2008 # Seelam Venkata Krishna, S/o. Late Damodaram, O/o. DC (Pay) RYPS, Wagon Workshop, Rayanapadu, S.C. Railway, Rayanapadu, R/o. D.No.32-35-37/1, Jamindar Street, Machavaram, Vijayawada – 4. ...PETITIONER Vs. $ 1. The Workshop Accounts Officer, Office of WAO/RYPS Wagon Workshop, Rayanapadu, S.c.Railway, Rayanapadu. 2. Mr. N.Subba Rayudu, S/o. not known, Room No.324, Rail Nilayam, III Floor, S.C.Railway, secunderabad – 500 071. ...RESPONDENTS ! COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: MR.RAMANA ALLU ^ COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS: MR. R.S.MURTHY < Gist : Ø Head Note: ? CITATIONS: 1. (1996) 6 SCC 417 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.25582 of 2008 Between: Seelam Venkata Krishna S/o. Late Damodaram, O/o. DC (Pay) RYPS, Wagon Workshop, Rayanapadu, S.C. Railway, Rayanapadu, R/o. D.No. 32-35-37/1, Jamindar Street, Machavaram, Vijayawada - 4. ...PETITIONER AND 1 The Workshop Accounts Officer Office of WAO/RYPS Wagon Workshop, Rayanapadu, S.C. Railway, Rayanapadu. 2 Mr. N. Subba Rayudu S/o. not known, Room No.324, Rail Nilayam, III Floor, S.C. Railway, Secunderabad - 500 071. ...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 an order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, or any other appropriate Writ, calling for the records pertaining to O.A.No.292/2008 dated 16-10-2008 of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad and quash and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary, and violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondent herein to wait for the outcome of the criminal trail, pending against the applicant before proceeding further with the departmental inquiry. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.RAMANA ALLU Counsel for the Respondents: MR.R.S.MURTHY The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.25582 of 2008 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Mr Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 16.10.2008 in O.A.No.292 of 2008 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (“the Tribunal” for brevity). The said O.A. was filed by the petitioner herein against the order dated 21.04.2008 directing him to attend the departmental proceedings on 21.05.2008 to 23.05.2008. The petitioner sought an order to quash and set aside the same by declaring it as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice, violative of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, violative of para-28.3 of the CVC Manual, violative of para-1122 of the Indian Railways Financial Code, Vol.I, Chapter XI and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and to consequently direct the respondents to await the outcome of the criminal trial pending against him before proceeding further with the departmental enquiry. The O.A. was disposed of by the order dated 16.10.2008, where under and whereby, the Tribunal gave liberty to the respondents to complete the departmental proceedings as per rule at the earliest and the petitioner was directed to co- operate with the disciplinary authority to enable him to conclude the disciplinary proceedings at the earliest. The brief facts are that while the petitioner-applicant was working as a Senior Cashier under the administrative control of the first respondent, he was placed under suspension by order dated 21.02.2004 for the reason that disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against him. Later on, the first respondent filed F.I.R.No.123 of 2004 with the CI of Police, Ibrahimpatnam, on 18.03.2004, against the petitioner and the petitioner was arrested and thereafter, released on bail. Subsequently, the CI of Police, Ibrahimpatnam, filed charge sheet bearing No.407 of 2005 in the Court of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner, in the meanwhile, was issued a charge memo by the Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, Cash and Pay, Secunderabad. Thereupon, he submitted a representation on 17.06.2005 raising objections about the competency of the said disciplinary authority and considering the same; the above charge sheet was withdrawn. Then, the first respondent, as the disciplinary authority, issued charge sheet dated 22.07.2005 and the applicant acknowledged the same on 30.07.2005. The applicant brought it to the notice of the respondents that the enquiry thereunder should not be held simultaneously with the criminal proceedings, as per para-1122 of the Indian Railways Financial Code, Vol.I. According to the petitioner, both the criminal case and the departmental proceedings are based on the same set of facts and evidence without an iota of difference and the documents relied upon in both the proceedings are one and the same. The respondents filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that the petitioner did not submit any written statement of defence. As per para-4 of the memorandum, an Inquiry Officer was appointed to inquire into the allegations made against the petitioner. The respondents further stated that the enquiry was fixed on 24.11.2006 duly giving notice to the petitioner, but he did not attend. The next hearing was held on 09.01.2007 and the petitioner attended the same and informed the enquiry officer that he had received the charge memorandum along with the documents. The petitioner denied the charge in the said enquiry and sought time to nominate a defence counsel to proceed with the enquiry. The enquiry officer fixed the enquiry on 31.01.2007, 12.02.2007 and 30.07.2007 but in spite of receipt of notice, the petitioner did not attend the enquiry. However, on the next date of the enquiry on 13.08.2007, he requested 20 days time to appoint his defence counsel and the same was accepted, but the petitioner did not attend the enquiry on the next date of enquiry. He submitted a representation that he could not attend the enquiry on 20.12.2007, as he had to attend the Court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, on the same date. The disciplinary authority remitted the matter to the Inquiry Officer vide proceedings dated 10.04.2008 to conduct further enquiry from the stage of examination of prosecution witness No.2, giving one more chance to the petitioner in the said enquiry. Based on the said order, the Inquiry Officer fixed the enquiry from 21.05.2008 to 23.05.2008 vide his proceedings dated 21.04.2008. Questioning the same, the petitioner approached the Tribunal. In para-4 of the counter, it is stated that the charge sheet was filed in the criminal case in C.C.No.407 of 2005 and the case is pending before the criminal Court. In the said case, 22 witnesses were examined and different documents were marked. With regard to the decision referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents stated that the said decision had no relevance to the facts and circumstances of the present case, as the matter was pending since 2004. In this context, the learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in State of Rajasthan v. B.K.Meena and ors.[1] and the judgment of the Tribunal in O.A.No.46 of 2007 dated 04.02.2008 and submitted that in a similar situation, relying upon State of Rajasthan v. B.K.Meena and ors. (2 supra), the Tribunal had allowed the departmental proceedings to continue and directed the respondents therein to conclude the same at the earliest and dismissed the O.A. The Tribunal carefully examined the contentions advanced and also para-22 of the judgment in the case of Capt.M.Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. And another, which reads as under. “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 facts 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.” The Tribunal noticed that the criminal proceedings had started way back in 2005 and had not yet been concluded till the date of the final hearing of the matter. The balance of convenience is in allowing the departmental proceedings to continue and conclude at the earliest, so that if the petitioner is not guilty of the charges framed against him, his honour will be vindicated and if he is found guilty, the department will be able to take appropriate steps as per rules to run the administration smoothly. It is well settled that the standard of proof in departmental proceedings with regard to financial matters is to be established beyond reasonable doubt. Once the guilt is so proved, punishment will be imposed. With regard to the alleged misconduct, the department is at liberty to proceed and there is no bar as the criminal proceedings and the departmental proceedings stand on a different footing. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is dismissed. _____________________ (GHULAM MOHAMMED, J) _________________ (SANJAY KUMAR, J) 17th December 2008 RRB [1] (1996) 6 SCC 417