S MANOHARAN Vs. DEPUTY CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Bharathidasan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and Mr. S. Manohar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) THE present appellant is working as a Constable (now under suspension) under the Railway Protection Force. A charge memo dated 21. 6. 2004 had been issued against him, which was to the following effect: - � CHARGE: Shri S. Manoharan, Cons. 154/ten charged for serious misconduct and negligence on duty in that while working as Constable. 1. He failed to prevent the Dacoity occurred in the Train no. 6124 of 04. 3. 2004, Ananthapuri Express at TEN though he was present at that time, where the gold, valued Rs. 18,00,000/- and a cash of Rs. 2,80,000/- were stolen. 2. Even though, he was aware of the Dacoity incident, he failed to inform the incident to his superiors.

(3.) IN the decision reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 (cited supra), it has been held that: � 22. (i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. (ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact,it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. (iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge-sheet. (iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. (v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest. �