IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.18017 of 2011 Date: 13.07.2011 Between: K. Renuka .....Petitioner AND The National Textiles Corporation Limited, rep. By its Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State and another ....Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.18017 of 2011 ORDER: 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to declare the action of the respondents in initiating the departmental proceedings by issuing charge sheet dated 08.09.2010 even before conclusion of the criminal case in R.C.No.13(A)/2010 dated 19.05.2010 pending before the Special Judge for C.B.I Cases, Hyderabad as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India and consequently stay the departmental proceedings till the finalisation of criminal case in R.C.No.13(A)/2010 dated 19.5.2010 pending before the Special Judge for CBI Cases. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondents. 3. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present writ petition may be stated as follows: The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Sales Girl in the first respondent corporation which is a Government of India Undertaking in the year 1992 and presently he is working in National Textile Corporation Show Room, Gunfoundry Road, Hyderabad. On 30.04.2010, a surprise check was conducted in NTC Show Room, Gundfoundry, Hyderabad by the Joint Inspection of NTC and CBI Officials and during the said inspection, they found certain irregularities and basing on the said irregularities, CBI has registered a case in Crime in Rc.No.13(A)/2010 dated 19.05.2010 and a charge sheet was also filed for the offences under Sections 120B, 409, 420, 465 and 477- A of IPC and 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)( c) and (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and the said criminal case is pending before the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad. The charges leveled in the departmental proceedings and in criminal case in RC No.13(A)/2010 dated 19.05.2010 pending before the Special Judge for CBI Cases are substantially identical and similar in nature. As per the allegations in the charge sheet filed by the CBI, the petitioner, misusing her official position, had prepared and issued some of the bills worth of Rs.1967.05 ps., fraudulently with inflated rates from a cash bill book and the said sale proceeds were neither deposited into bank nor reported to the department. Hence, the said charges of CBI are substantially identical and one and the same. More over, the departmental proceedings issued solely basing on the criminal case booked by the CBI. The departmental proceedings and the criminal proceedings are proceeded simultaneously and if the departmental proceedings are concluded even before conclusion of the criminal case, the petitioner’s case will be prejudiced for disclosure of petitioner’s defence in departmental enquiry. Since, the departmental proceedings and criminal case are based on similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of 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. Hence, the writ petition. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the witnesses to be examined in both the criminal case and the departmental enquiry are one and the same, and the charges in respect of both departmental enquiry and criminal case are one and the same, and that so, the continuation of departmental enquiry proceedings would nothing bus abuse of process of law and that the criminal case is at the state of trial and therefore, he prays to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision rendered in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited and another[1] wherein it was held: “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 is 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.” Basing on the above said judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on the identical and similar set of facts and the charges in the criminal case and the departmental proceedings are one and the same, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. But, as seen from the charges leveled against the petitioner in the departmental proceedings, as many as 10 charges have been framed, whereas in the criminal case, the charges leveled against the petitioner are for the offences under Sections 120B, 409, 420, 465 and 477-A of IPC and Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)( c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The articles of charges Nos.2,4,6,7,8,9 as framed in the departmental proceedings are not the subject matter in the criminal prosecution. In the departmental proceedings, five witnesses were cited whereas in the criminal prosecution as many as 17 witnesses have been cited. Except 4 witnesses who are common in both the matters, there are no identical and similarity in respect of evidence to be adduced. Therefore, the question of staying the departmental proceedings till conclusion of the criminal case is not warranted as the charges in the criminal case and departmental proceedings are only distinct and different except few charges which are common in both the cases. There are no merits in writ petition. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________ K.C.BHANU,J Date: 13th July, 2011. Gk THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.18017 of 2011 Date: 13.07.2011 Gk. [1] (1999) 3 Supreme Court Cases 679