M L DHUSSA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is facing criminal prosecution for the alleged offense punishable under Section 7 read with section 13(1)(b) and section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. At the relevant time, the Petitioner was functioning as Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ludhiana. Allegations against the Petitioner is that he demanded a bribe of Rs. 5 lakhs, later reduced to Rs.3 lakhs from one Shri Mohinder Singh for favourably deciding his four appeals and with the help of his brother in law Shri Deepak Chugh accepted part payment of Rs.2.5 lakhs through a close friend P.S. Makkar. The Petitioner has been suspended from service. On the basis of investigation, charge sheet under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. was filed sometime back and charge has already been framed. Matter is at the stage of trial and the prosecution witnesses are being examined.

(2.) The Petitioner is also departmentally charge sheeted on the aforesaid allegations and in the charge-sheet it is alleged that he failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and displayed conduct unbecoming of a government servant and thereby he has contravened Rule 3(i), 3(ii) and 3(iii) of the CCS Conduct Rules, 1965. After the service of this charge-sheet the petitioner filed OA No. 1277/2004 with the prayer that the disciplinary proceedings be kept in abeyance till the completion and finalization of the criminal trial. This petition was resisted by the respondents on the ground that two proceedings were of different nature and should go on independently. Matter was heard at length and vide judgment dated 15.12.2004 the OA was disposed of by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. Going through the said judgment would reveal that the Tribunal had taken note of various judgments of the Supreme Court, including the following judgments:-

(3.) The learned Tribunal observed that in the aforesaid judgments, the Supreme Court has held that the two proceedings, namely, departmental inquiry and criminal proceedings are of different nature; the standard of proof in the two proceedings is also different and both can go on simultaneously. It is also held in these judgments that the objective in criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings is altogether different and distinct. In the disciplinary proceedings the question is whether the delinquent employee is guilty of such conduct as warrants his dismissal or removal from service or lesser punishment, as the case may be, whereas in the criminal proceedings, the question is whether the offenses registered against him for which he is charged under the (Prevention of Corruption Act in the instant case) are established and if established, what sentence should be imposed upon him.