SHAIK KHADERVALI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is working as a Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Railway Protection Force and he is posted at Gooty. He was issued a memorandum of charges on 13.07.2010, alleging that he has resorted to acts of misconduct and dereliction of duty on 30.10.2009. Six charges were framed, which are mostly in relation to slackness on the part of the Petitioner in observing the delivery of scrap after weighingl; to the purchasers. Departmental enquiry is proposed. The Petitioner challenges the proposed departmental enquiry in pursuance of the charge sheet, dated 13.07.2010, on the ground that in relation to the same allegations, a criminal case in Crime No. 10 of 2009 was registered and the matter is pending in the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate for Railways, Guntakal. The Petitioner contends that he cannot be compelled to disclose his defence in the disciplinary proceedings, even while the criminal case is pending and if he discloses his defence at this stage, that would be detrimental to his interest in the criminal case. Reliance is placed upon certain provisions of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') and the judgments rendered by various Courts.

(2.) Sri J.M. Naidu, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that one of the cardinal principles of service law is that when an employee is subjected to prosecution under the relevant penal law on the one hand and disciplinary proceedings under the service Regulations on the other hand, the latter must be stayed or stalled till the conclusion of the former, lest the employee is forced to disclose his defence in the departmental proceedings, even while the criminal proceedings are pending. He further submits that the Petitioner is shown as accused No. 13 in the criminal case and that the charges in both the proceedings are based on the same set of facts. He also submits that filing of any explanation or disclosure of defence in the departmental proceedings would turn to be detrimental to his interest in the criminal case.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Respondents, on the other hand, submits that the crime alleged in the criminal case is referable to Section 3(a) of the Act, which pertains to unlawful possession or theft of railway property, whereas the allegation against the Petitioner in the departmental proceedings is the one of lack of proper supervision or dereliction of duties. She contends that there is no similarity of the charges in both the proceedings.