MANIK B PATIL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned counsel Ms. Pinky M Trivedi for the petitioner. In this Special Civil Application, the prayers sought for by petitioner are as under:

(2.) THE facts of the case in nutshell for the purpose of deciding the controversy involved in the present petition are as under: THE petitioner was appointed as Constable in Railway Protection Force and subsequently promoted as Assistant Sub-Inspector-RPF and is serving as Assistant Sub-Inspector in Railway Protection Force (in short, 'RPF') at present. When the petitioner was serving at the Surat post, on 6.4.2011, the Anti Corruption Bureau, Surat raided the place. THE petitioner was arrested for accepting Rs. 1000/- as illegal gratification from one outsider named Amarbabu Kachawa and accordingly criminal case against the petitioner being CR.No.05/2011 was registered with ACB police station, Surat. THEreafter the petitioner was suspended and was asked to give daily attendance at Valsad post. Meanwhile charge sheet was issued to the petitioner for conducting the departmental proceedings against the petitioner and the charge shown in the charge sheet at page 26 reads as under:

(3.) HAVING perused each of the conclusions narrated hereinabove and relied on by the Full Bench of the Apex Court, we are of the opinion that the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra) will not be of applicable in the present case as in Capt. M. Paul Anthony's case (supra), the question was whether departmental proceedings should be kept in abeyance during the pendency of a criminal case for which in the conclusion (i) as referred above, it is clearly held that there is no bar in conducting departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case simultaneously. Thus in the given case when the petitioner was allegedly caught red-handed by the ACB for accepting bribe of Rs.1000/- as illegal gratification and the criminal case is filed in the ACB police station, in our view, the departmental proceedings can be conducted simultaneously as per the Rules of the department especially when the departmental proceedings and proceedings in the criminal case are not based on identical and similar set of facts. Thus there is no force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in arguing that it is the general rule to await for the decision in the criminal case, as conclusion (iii) referred above is very clear that due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed.