PREMA SIMON Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner sought for issue of a writ in the nature of Mandamus to the respondents to forbear from holding enquiry pursuant to the charges framed against him in Ref. No. CO/IRD/AS/VIG/352/93 dated December 28, 1993 read with supplementary charge-sheet bearing Ref. No. GO/IRD/AS/VIG/352/1547/94 dated March 2, 1994 issued by the first respondent until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings in Crime No. 1441/93 registered with the Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Madras. THE learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition at the stage of admission, holding that it is too early, for the petitioner to seek stay of the proceedings, as the trial in the criminal case has not yet commenced and not even the charge sheet has been filed and the case is at the investigation stage.

(2.) THE principle under which the proceedings before the disciplinary authority are stayed when both the criminal case and the disciplinary proceedings are founded on the same set of facts is that no prejudice should be caused to the party, who is facing both the proceedings, and if both the proceedings are simultaneously conducted, it is likely that the defence of the party in the criminal case would be affected, which may cause an incalculable damage. THErefore, normally when it is found that the criminal case and also the disciplinary proceeding are founded on the same set of facts, the disciplinary proceedings are stayed. In the instant case only the F.I.R is filed and the criminal case is at the investigation stage. It is not known, whether it will result in the filing of the charge sheet or not. THE investigation in the criminal case may go on for a long and indefinite time. It is not possible to say that it will be over within a particular period. Until the charge sheet is filed, it is not possible to say with certainty that both the proceedings are grounded on the same set of facts. In the instant case, it is not known as to when the charge sheet will be filed; whereas the disciplinary proceeding is already half-way through. Some of the witnesses have already been examined. In such a situation, if it is not possible to say that any prejudice will be caused to the petitioner. If the disciplinary proceedings is permitted to go on, because the stage of putting forth defence in the criminal case is not yet arrived, and as pointed out already, it is not known, whether the investigation would result in filing charge sheet. THE Supreme Court, in Kusheshwar Dubey v. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited (1988-I-LLJ-170) referred to by the learned single Judge, has, after referring to several earlier decisions, held thus :

(3.) IN this view of the matter, we hold that the learned single Judge is justified in refusing to entertain the writ petition, and we see no ground to interfere with the same. Accordingly the Writ Appeal is dismissed. However, it is made clear that if the disciplinary proceeding is not concluded even before the charge sheet is filed and trial is commenced it is open to the appellant to invoke the Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of INdia, for appropriate relief in the matter. Reserving this liberty, the Writ Appeal is dismissed.