IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA L.P.A. No.400 of 2011 IN CWJC No. 18433 of 2010 With I.A. No. 1851 of 2011 In L.P.A. No. 400 of 2011 ==================================================== Sanjay Kumar, S/o Late Phuldeo Prasad, R/o Village-Maldah, P.S.- Barbigha, District- Sheikhpura. At present suspended Excise Superintendent, H.Q. at Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Excise Patna Division, Patna. ….. Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar, 2. Secretary, Department of Registration, Excise and Prohibition, Bihar, New Secretariat, Vikash Bhawan, Patna. 3. The Joint Secretary, Department of Registration, Excise and Prohibition, Bihar, New Secretariat, Vikash Bhawan, Patna 4. Commissioner, Excise & Prohibition Department, New Secretariat, Vikash Bhawan, Patna. …… Respondents ==================================================== APPEARANCE : For the Appellant : Mr. K.N.Choube, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Indu Bhushan, Advocate. For the Vigilance : Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Sr. Advocate. For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar, J.C. to Advocate General. ==================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2. 11.03.2011 Re. Interlocutory Application No. 1851 of 2011: This application under section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 50 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the delay is condoned. Interlocutory application stands disposed of. 2 Re. Letters Patent Appeal No. 400 of 2011: This appeal preferred under clause 10 of the letters patent arises from the judgment and order dated 10th December 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 18433 of 2010. The appellant, an Excise Superintendent in the State of Bihar filed the above CWJC No. 18433 of 2010 to seek stay of the departmental proceedings pending the criminal prosecution. In a trap laid on 12th June 2009 the appellant was caught red handed accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 10,000/- from one Mahesh Rai. For the said act, he was taken in judicial custody from 12th June 2009 to 27th October 2009. He is prosecuted in Spl. Case No. 62 of 2009 for offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appellant is also prosecuted in Spl. Case No. 22 of 2009 for amassing wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income. For the aforesaid two incidents, a disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against the appellant on 3rd February 2010. The appellant approached this court in above CWJC No. 18433 of 2010 for stay of the departmental proceedings pending criminal prosecution and for other reliefs. Learned single Judge has, under the impugned judgment and order, observed that the department will consider the demand of the delinquent for several documents. However, the learned single Judge has refused to stay the departmental proceedings. Therefore the present appeal. 3 Learned Advocate Mr. K.N.Choube has appeared for the appellant. He has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jawaharlal Darda & Others Vs. Manoharrao Ganpatrao Kapsikar & Another (AIR 1998 SC 2118) and of this court in the matter of Dr. Krishna Kant Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Others {1998(3) PLJR 545} and in the matter of Kapil Muni Rai Vs. the State of Bihar & Ors {2011(1) PLJR 123}. The appeal is contested by the respondents. The reliance is placed on the judgment in the matter of Nagendra Vs. State of Bihar {2009(3) PLJR 324}. The matter does not require long discussion. The matter is now settled since the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Rajasthan Vs. B.K.Meena and others (AIR 1997 SC 13) followed by several judgments including that of Nagendra Vs. State of Bihar {2009(3) PLJR 324}. In similar set of facts the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in the matter of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Others Vs. Sarvesh Berry {(2005) 10 SCC 471}, refused to stay the disciplinary proceedings pending the criminal prosecution. It is well settled that the object of criminal prosecution and the departmental proceedings and the consequences thereof are entirely different. The strict rules of evidence which govern the criminal trial are not applicable in the disciplinary proceedings. The request for stay of the disciplinary proceedings is, therefore, required to be rejected. The learned single Judge has rightly not granted such relief. No case for interference is made out. 4 For the aforesaid reasons, the Appeal is dismissed in limine. Sujit (R.M.Doshit, CJ.) (Jyoti Saran,J.)