IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17034 of 2008 Chandrika Vishwakarma son of Late Kewal Viswakarma, resident of village – Dona, P.S. – Hisua, District – Nawada ….. Petitioner Versus 1. The Union Of India through the Secretary, Indian Post and Telegraph Department, Government of India, New Delhi 2. The Chief Postmaster General, Bihar Circle, Patna 3. The Postmaster General, Central Division, Bihar at GPO, Patna 4. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Gaya Division, Gaya 5. The Sub-Divisional Inspector (P.O.S.), West Sub – Division, Buniyadganj, Gaya ……….. Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Alok Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Sudhir Singh, ASG Mr. Sarvadeo Singh, CGC ----------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----------- Dated, the 25th November, 2008. We heard counsel for the petitioner. 2. The Tribunal considered the matter thus: “12. Now, we have to consider as to whether the criminal case and the departmental proceeding could have continued simultaneously, taking into consideration the parameters as stated in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra). Obviously, such a prayer can be considered, for staying the departmental proceeding, if the departmental proceeding and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts. As already seen, the criminal case was instituted for offences punishable under Sections 409/420/465 & 468 of the Indian Penal Code. From the order of the Disciplinary Authority it would appear that the charges were mainly that while accepting deposits in the Branch Post Office the delinquent employee had entered those in the respective pass books but did not enter the same in the SB journal nor accounted for in the BO account for the respective dates as well he did not make their entries in the BO journal or in the BO daily accounts. Not having done so, he had violated the provisions of Rule 131(3), 165(c), 173(f), 174(2) & (3) and 175 of the BO Rules as well as Rule 17 of the EDA (Conduct & Service) Rules, 1964. - 2 - 13. Obviously, the effect of not making such entries may be same, i.e., misappropriate of a substantial amount of money, but whereas the criminal proceeding was launched for such misappropriate of the money and other offences, the charges in the departmental proceeding, which were found to be proved, were mainly for violating the departmental rules. Therefore, it cannot be said that the charges in the criminal proceeding as well in the departmental proceeding were the same. Non observance of the departmental rules may result in serious consequences including loss to the exchequer, hence such act of misconduct on their own have to be taken up seriously and for that a departmental proceeding can be initiated against an employee though be might be facing criminal charges also. 14. Moreover, the applicant in the case was not honourably acquitted but was given benefit of doubt on account of certain witnesses turning hostile and most of the witnesses not turning at all. In the cases discussed above, in which the petitions/civil appeals were allowed by the Apex Court, not only the charges in both the proceeding were same but the delinquent employee in the Trial was acquitted honorably, i.e. on consideration of the evidences brought on the record in support of the prosecution case. Such an acquittal, as in this case, would not entitle an employee to be reinstated just on the strength of such an order recorded by the Trial Court in the criminal case. Moreover, in such circumstances the departmental proceeding could hardly have been postponed for ten long years which time the criminal Court took for disposal of the case.” 3. We find no justification to take a view different from the Tribunal. Writ petition is dismissed in limine. R.M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Anil/