(1.) The petitioner challenges the order dated 28th October, 2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A No.3050/2009 titled Sh.R.S.Negi v. Delhi Development Authority dismissing his petition seeking stay of disciplinary proceedings in view of the criminal trial already pending against him. The petitioner was an assistant with Delhi Development Authority and he sought stay of departmental proceedings initiated against him pursuant to charge sheet dated 7th April, 2008. The charges against the petitioner are that on 11th March, 2005 Mohd.Ashiqueen lodged a complaint in Anti Corruption Branch alleging that his brother had purchased a flat from Smt.Janki Devi and after making full payment approached petitioner for possession of the same, however, the petitioner demanded Rs.20,000/- as illegal gratification for the same and on inability shown by the brother of the purchaser, the petitioner agreed to take the amount in two installments. The first installment of Rs.10,000/- was payable on 11th March, 2005 and on a trap being led, the petitioner was caught red handed while accepting bribe. This conduct of the petitioner exhibited lack of absolute devotion to duty, lack of absolute integrity and he acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant and he also contravened Rule 4.1 (I) (ii) and (iii) of DDA Conduct, Disciplinary and Appeal Regulations, 1999. A criminal case being C.C No.67/2006 State v. Rajinder Singh Negi was also initiated against the petitioner for accepting bribe from the complainant Mohd.Ashiqeen for giving possession of DDA house in Inderlok, Delhi. The petitioner is tried for committing an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The criminal case is also for criminal misconduct as specified under Section 13(i) (d) and punishable under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The plea of the petitioner before the Tribunal for staying the departmental proceedings was that the evidence before the criminal Court and in the departmental proceedings shall be the same and the matter before the departmental proceedings may involve complicated questions of facts and law and, therefore, the departmental proceedings should be stayed.
(2.) After considering the pleas and contentions and the record, the Tribunal inferred that the case before the departmental authorities does not involve complicated questions of facts and law and it is a simple case of petitioner being trapped accepting bribe of Rs.10,000/- red handed and, therefore, there are no grounds to stay the departmental proceedings.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has very emphatically contended that the departmental proceedings involve complicated questions of facts and law and relying on JT 1999 (2) SC 456, Capt.M.Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd & Anr and (1988) 4 SCC 319, Kusheshwar Debey v. M/s.Bharat Coking Coal Ltd and Ors it is asserted that the departmental proceedings should be stayed. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the precedents relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner it cannot be disputed that there is no legal bar for simultaneous proceedings being taken. The standard of proof in a criminal case is different from the standard of proof before the departmental proceedings. This is also not disputed that there may be cases where it would be appropriate to defer disciplinary proceedings awaiting disposal of the criminal case. In Capt.M.Paul Anthony (supra), the Supreme Court had crystallized factors from various decisions of the Apex Court relevant for deciding whether the departmental proceedings should be stayed or not pending criminal trial. The Supreme Court had held that the conclusions which are deductible from the various decisions of Court are as under:-