M CHANDRASHEKARAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this appeal represents an almost disastrous state of affairs and is illustrative of a situation in which even after running from pillar to post, the appellant finds himself in the wrong box. The facts themselves will demonstrate the manifest injustice that has been done to the appellant. The appellant is a police constable who is facing a prosecution on alleged charges punishable under Section 498-a, I.P.C. simultaneously, a decision was taken by the authorities to institute departmental action against him in respect of the same set of facts, namely, the circumstances under which his late wife had died. The appellant approached the administrative tribunal with an application whereunder he had prayed for an Order deferring the departmental proceedings until disposal of the criminal case. The contention taken up was that the charges are virtually overlapping, that the witnesses are the same and that if the appellant were to disclose his defence in the disciplinary proceedings, the witnesses would thereafter be forewarned and consequently, serious prejudice may be done to his defence in the criminal court. This is an apprehension which is quite understandable in several situations and the appellant, therefore, desired that the proceedings should follow each other, the criminal case having precedence and that the simultaneous conduct of the parallel proceedings should not be permitted. Without examining the merits of the case, since the appellant had placed reliance on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Kusheshwar Dubey v. Mis. Bhqrat Coking Coal Ltd. And others, the tribunal passed a short Order to the effect that since in that decision, the appellant had moved the civil court for an injunction Order for stoppage of the disciplinary proceedings until the criminal case was concluded, that the right forum would be the civil court and directed the appellant to approach the civil court and pray for appropriate reliefs.

(2.) the appellant thereupon approached the trial court andwhen his suit came up for interim orders, the learned government Advocate raised a preliminary objection with regard to the exercise of jurisdiction by the civil court. On the basis of the provisions of sections 15 and 28 of the administrative tribunals Act, 1985, it was contended that the jurisdiction of the civil court was barred in respect of service matters and that consequently, the suit was liable to be dismissed. The learned trial judge upheld this objection and dismissed the suit upholding that the correct forum was the administrative tribunal and not the civil court. Out of desperation, the appellant has now approached this court virtually for a resolutions of the question as to which of the two fora is the correct one and where he should go for obtaining appropriate orders. Notice was therefore, issued to the respondents as the matter requires resolution and the departmental enquiry was stayed by an interim Order, whereas the criminal trial proceeded.

(3.) the appellant's learned Advocate has drawn my attentionto the facts of the aforesaid case and he submits that in this and several other decisions, the Supreme Court has, without laying down any hard and fast rule, observed that it is appropriate that the criminal proceedings should first be concluded and the departmental action taken up thereafter if such action is warranted. He therefore, submits that the law is now well-settled and that his client is therefore, entitled to a direction to that effect. He also draws the attention of this court to the fact that in the aforesaid case, the plaintiff had approached the civil court for an appropriate injunction Order and that the Supreme Court had not disapproved of such a procedure. He therefore, submitted that the impugned Order is liable to be set aside and that the appeal be allowed.