IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.16603 of 2008 Between: K.Balaswamy S/o K.Papaiah, Aged 53 years, Occupation: Fitter Gr.II/RCD/NLPD, President of Lakshmi Nagar, Old Guntur, Guntur. Petitioner And: 1. The Divisional Railway Manager, South Central Railway, Guntur Division, Guntur. 2. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, South Central Railway, Guntur Division, Guntur. 3. The Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, South Central Railway, Guntur Division, Guntur. … Respondents For the reasons stated in the accompanying aﬃdavit, it is hereby prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling for records pertaining to O.A.356 of 2007 and to declare the action on the part of the respondents in completing the departmental enquiry as arbitrary, illegal and unjust and consequently direct the respondents not to take any action against the applicant in the disciplinary proceedings in pursuance of Charge Memo vide Memo No.GNT/M.271/I/DAR/KBS, dated 14.11.2006 till the completion of criminal trial in C.C.No.110 of 2006 pending in the II Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Vijayawada. Counsel for the petitioner : Sri V.Krishna Mohan Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Standing Counsel for Railways The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No.16603 of 2008 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking to set aside the order dated 10.07.2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, in O.A.No.356 of 2007, and consequently direct the respondents not to proceed with the departmental enquiry, till the completion of trial, in C.C.No.110 of 2006, pending against him, on the ﬁle of the II Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Vijayawada. Petitioner was employed as Fitter Grade.II in the department of railways. While he was working at RCD/NLPD, in the Guntur Division, a criminal case, being Crime No.7 of 2006, was registered against him by the Railway Protection Force, under Section 3(a) of Railway Property (Unauthorised Possession) Act, 1966. Consequent to his arrest in the said case, he was placed under suspension, by proceedings dated 22.02.2006, and departmental enquiry was initiated against him. During the pendency of the enquiry, petitioner ﬁled O.A.No.356 of 2007 before the Tribunal seeking to stall the departmental enquiry till completion of trial in the criminal case on the ground that the charges levelled in the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are one and the same. The respondents ﬁled a counter in the said O.A, contendi ng, inter alia, that departmental enquiry was completed and the petitioner also expressed that he was fully satisﬁed with the mode of enquiry, that enquiry report was also furnished to the petitioner and that the ﬁnal order could not be passed because of the stay granted by the Tribunal. Therefore, at this stage, the petitioner cannot seek stay of the departmental proceedings. The Tribunal dismissed the O.A., by order dated 10.07.2008, holding that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if the departmental proceedings are allowed to continue, and thereby vacated the stay granted earlier, giving liberty to the respondents to continue the departmental proceedings. Aggrieved thereby, this writ petition is filed. Heard Sri M.V.Krishna Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the material on record. Admittedly, enquiry in the departmental proceedings was completed and the enquiry report was also furnished to the petitioner. At that stage, petitioner sought to stall the departmental proceedings on the ground that the charges before the Criminal Court and the departmental enquiry being identical, the respondents cannot initiate parallel proceedings. It was also contention that the material that would be relied upon in the departmental enquiry would be the same upon which the prosecuting agency before the criminal court would also rely upon, hence, the petitioner will be compelled to disclose his defence in advance which would seriously prejudice his case before the criminal court. On the other hand, it is the contention of the respondents that the petitioner cannot seek to stall the departmental proceedings during the pendency of the criminal proceedings as a matter of course and it would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. To substantiate the said contention, the respondents relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. T.Srinivas[1]. The Tribunal, placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the above case and other judgments observed that advisability, desirability or propriety of staying the departmental enquiry, has to be determined, in each case, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, stay of disciplinary proceedings cannot be and should not be a matter of course. It is the settled proposition of law that departmental proceedings is with regard to misconduct alleged against an employee, whereas the criminal case relates to an oﬀence. The standard of proof with regard to the departmental proceedings is quite diﬀerent from that of the criminal case. Apart from this, the enquiry in the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner was completed and the report was also furnished to the petitioner. He could not explain as to how he will be prejudiced if the departmental proceedings are allowed to continue when admittedly the enquiry was over. In these circumstances, we hold that the Tribunal has rightly refused to stall the departmental proceedings. We do not ﬁnd any illegality or inﬁrmity in the order of the Tribunal, calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed. It is open to the respondent-authorities to complete the departmental proceedings, as per law. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________________ (Justice Ghulam Mohammed) ___________________ (Justice C.V.Ramulu) 31st July 2008 sh [1] AIR 2004 SC 4127