1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2654 OF 2009 Subhash s/o Balkrushna Amrutkar, Age-58 years, Occu:Account Officer, In the office of General Manager, Aurangabad Textile Mills, At present working at Dhule Textile Mill, Dhule. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The Chairman cum Managing Director, National Textile Corporation Ltd., Coreive Sports Complex, Ludhi Road, New Delhi 11003, 2) V.D. Zope, Chief General Manager, (T/P & A), National Textile Corporation (WZ) Ltd., Apollo House, 32, M.N. Joshi Marg, Chinchpokali, Mumbai 400 011, 3) M.K. Mehta, Enquiry Officer, Chalisgaon Textile Mill, Chalisgaon, Dist-Dhule. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.A.N. Kakade Advocate for Petitioner. Shri. M.N. Navandar Advocate for the Respondent No.2. ... 2 CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.U. CHANDWAL, JJ. DATE : 14TH DECEMBER, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. The Petitioner was charged for an offence punishable under Section 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The F.I.R. was registered against the Petitioner on 4th April, 2008. According to the Petitioner, he was arrested on the same day and was released on bail on 5th April, 2008. The Petitioner was working as Officer of Accounts in the Respondent Textile Corporation at Aurangabad Textile Mill. The Respondent employer initiated departmental enquiry against the Petitioner. A charge sheet came to be served on the Petitioner on 26th December, 2008. The Petitioner filed reply to the said charge sheet. The charge sheet in the criminal case was also filed by the police and the learned counsel submits that the charge is yet to be framed by the criminal Court. 3 2. This Petition was filed on 8th April, 2009 with a prayer to stay the proceedings of the departmental enquiry initiated against the Petitioner by Respondent No.2 till the completion of the criminal case. By an order dated 28th April, 2009 notices were issued by this Court and ad interim relief in terms of prayer clause (C) was granted. 3. The Respondent Corporation filed Civil Application for getting vacated the ex parte ad interim relief granted in favour of the Petitioner and for hearing of the matter at the admission stage. 4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on the following reported Judgments in support of the submissions, that each case has to be considered on its facts and circumstances while dealing with the prayer made by the Petitioner. 4 1) Kusheshwar Dubey vs. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and others, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. Page 2118, 2) State of Rajasthan vs. B.K. Meena and others, A.I.R. 1997 S.C. Page 13, 3) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Sarvesh Berry, A.I.R. 2005 S.C. Page 1406. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is to retire hardly after two months. No witnesses are examined in the departmental enquiry. The criminal case is also not proceeded further and in case the departmental enquiry is permitted to be continued, the Petitioner would be forced to disclose the defence which he wants to disclose before the criminal Court. The Petitioner would be prejudiced if the departmental enquiry is permitted to proceed. The Petitioner was earlier suspended but later on the Petitioner was allowed to work and 5 has been working at Dhule Textile Mill. 6. Shri Navandar, the learned counsel for Respondent No.2 has also placed reliance on the following Judgments: 1) Indian Overseas Bank, Annasalai and another vs. P. Ganesan and others, (2008) I Supreme Court Cases, 650, 2) Noida Entrepreneurs Association v/s Noida and others, (2007) 10 Supreme Court Cases, 385, 3) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and others vs. Sarvesh Berry, (2005) 10 Supreme Court Cases, 471. 4) State of Rajasthan vs. B.K. Meena and others, (1996) 6 Supreme Court Cases, 417. 7. The Judgments cited and relied by Shri Navandar, are discussed in the order passed by the Division Bench in Writ Petition No.1908 of 2009 6 dated 23rd July, 2009 (Coram: P.V. Hardas and A.V. Potdar, JJ.) 8. The learned counsel Shri Navandar submits that in principle there is no bar for holding departmental enquiry even if criminal case is pending against the delinquent officer. Unless a complicated question of law is involved and an exceptional case is made out, an employee who is facing criminal charge, has no vested right to seek stay to the departmental enquiry. 9. We have perused the Judgments cited above and considered the submissions advanced by the parties. 10. At the first instance, we find it surprising that inspite of the fact that the the Petitioner was suspended due to the charge levelled against him in criminal proceedings, later on he was allowed to join the duties and he is working at present. The principles behind staying the 7 departmental enquiry pending the criminal case, have been well enunciated by the Apex Court in the Judgments cited above. The advisability or desirability or propriety to determine the prayer made by the Petitioner in such a case has to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case. 11. In the reported Judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. B.K. Meena and others, A.I.R. 1997 S.C. Page 13 (supra), the Apex Court observed that: "So far as criminal cases are concerned, it is well known that they drag on endlessly where high officials or persons holding high public offices are involved. They get bogged down on one or the other ground. They hardly ever reach a prompt conclusion. That is the reality in spite of repeated advice and admonitions from Courts. If a criminal case is unduly delayed that may itself be a good ground for going ahead withs the disciplinary 8 enquiry even where the disciplinary proceedings are held over at an earlier stage. The interests of administration and good Government demand that these proceedings are concluded expeditiously. It must be remembered that interests of administration demand that undesirable elements are thrown out and any charge of misdemeanour is enquired into promptly. The disciplinary proceedings are meant not really to punish the guilty but to keep the administrative machinery unsullied by getting rid of bad elements. The interests of the delinquent officer also lies in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. If he is not guilty of the charges, his honour should be vindicated at the earliest possible moment and if he is guilty, he should be dealt with promptly according to law. It is not also in the interest of administration that persons accused of serious misdemeanour should be continued in office indefinitely, i.e. for long period awaiting the 9 result of criminal proceedings. it is not in the interest of administration. it only serves the interest of the guilty and dishonest. It is not possible to enumerate the various factors, for and against the stay of disciplinary proceedings. Stay of disciplinary proceedings cannot be, and should not be, a matter of course. All the relevant factors, for and against, should be weighed and a decision taken." 12. We find that the prayers of this nature have to be considered by the Courts keeping in view the principles enunciated by the Apex Court as quoted above. 13. In the present case, it is informed that the criminal case has yet not begun. The charge is not framed though the offence was registered on 4th April, 2008. The ground that in a departmental enquiry pending criminal case, the employee would be disclosing the defence in the departmental 10 enquiry which he wants to disclose in the criminal proceeding, is common to all the cases of this nature. Considering the charges levelled against the Petitioner, we do not find that this is a complicated case involving serious questions of law. We even do not find that this is exceptional case where protection needs to be granted to the Petitioner even though it is stated that the Petitioner will retire near-about after two months. The law has to take its own course. 14. In the light of the principles enunciated by the Apex Court and the facts of this case, we are not inclined to accept the submissions advanced on behalf of the Petitioner. We do not find that serious prejudice would be caused to the Petitioner. We direct the Respondent No.2 Corporation to dispose of the departmental enquiry at the earliest on its own merits. We express no opinion on the charges levelled against the Petitioner. The Writ Petition is dismissed. Interim relief granted earlier, stands vacated. 11 Civil Application No.12018 of 2009 is disposed of. 16. At this stage, Shri Kakade, the learned counsel for the Petitioner prays for continuation of ad interim relief for a period of eight weeks. We reject the prayer. [K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL,J.] asb/DEC09/wp2654.09