SHIVABHAI MANGALBHAI PATEL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr A L Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms Mita S Panchal, learned counsel for the respondents. Being aggrieved by the order dated 28.2.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad dismissing Original Application No.332 of 2004 challenging the action on the part of the respondent authorities in initiating departmental inquiry when a criminal case is pending against the petitioner.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was working as Sub-Postmaster with Krishnanagar Sub-Post Office came to be indicted by the CBI which arrives the trap in a case of demanding and accepting illegal gratification from the complainants Prahladbhai Nai, an agent of Small Savings. Charge sheet has been filed in the court of Special Judge by the CBI. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that by order dated 8/14.10.2003 charge sheet on the same facts relying on the same documents and witnesses came to be served upon him and hence the petitioner has approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal") by way of OA No. 332 of 2004 seeking indulgence but the Tribunal, after hearing the learned Advocates for the parties, dismissed the said O.A. by order dated 28.2.2005 and hence the same is challenged by preferring the present Special Civil Application before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the Tribunal had materially erred in relying upon the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others v. T. Srinivas (2004) 7 SCC 442. Though the same was not relied upon by any of the parties, either in the pleadings or during arguments to deny the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner in the said Original Application. Relying on the decision of State Bank of India v. R.B. Sharma (AIR 2004 SC 4144) in which it is made clear that the issue has to be examined from the view that whether departmental inquiry would seriously prejudice the delinquent in his defense in the trial of the criminal case and it is always a question of fact to be considered in each case depending upon on its own facts and circumstances, the learned counsel has requested to allow this petition as prayed for.

(3.) IT is argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that though the witnesses and documents cited in the criminal case against the petitioner are the same as mentioned in the charge sheet issued by the department, it is also an admitted fact that the criminal proceedings have been initiated for criminal misconduct committed by the petitioner, a Government Servant whereas the departmental proceedings have been initiated for violation of the provisions of the Central Civil Services (CCA) Conduct Rules, 1964 and there is no bar on both the proceedings continuing simultaneously. Provisions of Rule 128-B of Posts and Telegraphs Man. Vol. II reads as under: "As soon as sufficient evidence is available for the purpose in the course of investigation in cases of misconduct, whether such investigation is conducted departmentally or through the police (including the Special Police Establishment) action should be taken under the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules or other appropriate disciplinary proceedings need not interfere with the police investigation, which may be continued, where necessary. After the Departmental proceedings are concluded, the penalty, if any, imposed as a result thereof, the question of prosecution should be considered in the light of such material as may have become available as a result of the investigation."