AKSHAY JAIN Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20th September, 2004 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant praying for staying the departmental proceeding, which is initiated against the appellant. It is the case of the appellant that he will be prejudiced in his defence if he is required to contest the departmental proceeding as a criminal case on the same charges is pending before the criminal court.

(2.) There is no dispute that a criminal case under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code read with the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act is pending against the appellant for alleged commission and omission in discharging his official duties. During the pendency of the aforesaid criminal case, a departmental proceeding was also initiated against the appellant with specific charges. There is also no dispute that some of the charges contained in the memorandum of charges sent to the appellant while initiating the departmental proceeding are common with that of the criminal charges alleged against the appellant. A comparative analysis of the allegations in the criminal case pending against the appellant and the charges contained in the memorandum of charges issued pursuant to the departmental proceeding initiated indicate and prove that charge No.1, charge No.4, charge No.7 and charge No.8 of the departmental proceedings are similar to allegations made against the appellant in the criminal case pending against the appellant. Our attention was also drawn during the course of arguments that some of the witnesses cited in the departmental proceedings are also witnesses who would be examined in the criminal case pending against the appellant. Some of the documents which are also cited in the departmental proceedings are also common. In the light of the aforesaid position, the stand taken by the appellant was that he would be prejudiced in his criminal trial if he is required to disclose his defence in the departmental proceedings. In support of the aforesaid submission, the counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another reported in (1993) 3 SCC 679.

(3.) The learned Single Judge considered the facts of the criminal case as also of the departmental proceedings pending against the appellant and after appreciation of the records and submissions made has held that there are no complicated questions of fact and law involved which require deferment of the departmental proceedings. Having held thus and in the light of the decision in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another (supra), it was held that since the case does not involve complex questions of fact or law, therefore, exception carved out in the aforesaid case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another (supra) would apply and consequently there was no question of staying the further proceeding of the departmental proceedings. Resultantly, the writ petition was dismissed.