B S CHANDRASEKHAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner is applicant in Application No. 1184/2008 before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, where he prayed to quash the proceedings of Director General and Inspector General of Police, Karnataka State dated 12-12-2007 and consequently, the charge memo dated 19-12-2007, whereunder, disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner who was working as Police Sub-Inspector of Arasikere Police Station, Pavagada taluk, Tumkur District alleging that while he was working as Sub-Inspector of Police at arasikere Police Station, during July 2006, he had demanded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to convert a case in favour of one Dudya Nayak and also received a sum of Rs. 1,000/ -. In that regard, by the alleged act, he had committed offence under the provisions of Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, a criminal case had already been filed against him in crime No. 6/2006 on the file of Shimoga lokayuktha Police and he had also been charge-sheeted in the said case. A criminal case is also pending before the Special Judge, shimoga in P. C. C. R. No. 2/2007. Contending that, the allegations, the complaint and the evidence as well as the charges relied upon by the State in the said case as well as in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner are one and the same and therefore, the respondents should not proceed with the disciplinary action. The Tribunal by order dated 12-12-2007 disagreed with the contention of the petitioner and refused to quash the impugned action and also stay the departmental proceedings on the ground that criminal proceedings is still pending against the petitioner. Hence the present writ petition.

(3.) IT is settled law that the standard of proof in a departmental proceedings and that in a criminal trial is different and there cannot be a strait-jacket formula in the matter of granting stay of departmental proceedings. There may be cases where the trial of case is pro-longed by dilatory method adopted by the delinquent official and therefore, he cannot be permitted to, on one hand, prolong the criminal case and at the same time contend that disciplinary proceedings should be stayed on the ground that the criminal case is pending. 4. 1 Admittedly, in the instant case, the criminal case in Special P. C. No. 2/2007 has been stayed by this Court at the instance of the petitioner himself in Criminal petition No. 5020/2007 by order dated 27-11-2007. 4. 2 As held by the Apex Court in hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Sarvesh Berry, reported in 2005 (10) SCC 471 : (AIR 2003 SC 1406) the scope and object of departmental enquiry, particularly, in the matter of Prevention of Corruption is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. It would, therefore, be expedient that disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible. It is, therefore, not desirable to stay such department proceedings merely on the ground that a criminal case is pending. 4. 3 In the instant case, the petitioner-delinquent himself obtained stay of trial. Therefore, as laid down by the Apex Court in hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Sarvesh Berry, (AIR 2005 SC 1406), (supra), criminal case and the departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously, as there is no bar for conducting the criminal and departmental proceedings simultaneously. 4. 4 The ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Capt. Paul Anthony v. Bharath Gold Mines ltd. , reported in 1999 SCC (Lands) 810 : (AIR 1999 SC 1416) is apt to be referred in this regard, which reads as hereunder :