M.P. SHARMA Vs. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER 's prayer in the writ petition is to stay the proceedings of the departmental enquiry till the conclusion of trial by the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Jabalpur in Criminal Case and further direction to supply certified copies to him. The petitioner was holding charge of Nazir of Malkhana in District Court, Jabalpur. Before one and a half years of his retirement he was asked to hand over the charge of Malkhana to Shri Anjani Prasad Mishra. He only partially handed over the charge, then proceeded on leave and before the date of superannuation he did not complete the formality of handing over the charge. Departmental enquiry was ordered against the petitioner. The petitioner retired on 29 -11 -1997. He was issued a charge -sheet on the same day. As many as seven charges were labelled against him not to hand over the charge, depositing the amount in excess, not keeping properties in proper condition for enabling their identification, certain properties were not found in Malkhana, not handing over the entire charge and the goods. Thus the petitioner was labelled charge of gross misconduct and gross negligence which is violative of Rule 3 of M.P. Civil Service Conduct Rules -1965 punishable under Rule 10 of M.P. Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. 1997 (2) SCC 699. 1996 (6) SCC 417, was considered by the Supreme Court in which their Lordships laid down that in grave cases, the enquiry should be permitted to be completed as expeditiously as possible. Otherwise, the administration would be jeopardised. In my opinion, the facts in the departmental enquiry which are required to be proved are not to be put up before the criminal Court. The scope of criminal charge is different. The burden of proof in the departmental enquiry and in the criminal case is different, the scope of departmental enquiry appears to be limited as to not handing over the charge in spite of the order and not keeping the articles in proper conditions so as to enable their identification and the question which is to be gone into is whether the entire charge was handed over or not and charge was not handed over of articles. Scope of departmental enquiry is different from that of criminal trial where the charge under section 409 is required to be proved. The evidence is not going to be same. Conviction or acquittal in criminal case is not going to affect the departmental enquiry and its outcome. The decision of departmental enquiry is based on not keeping articles properly, not handing over the charge of Malkhana, not following order, going on leave. The departmental enquiry has to be completed expeditiously. The case is of such a nature which cannot brook delay. The Apex Court itself has laid down in Depot Manager A.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Mohd. Yousuf Miya (supra) that disciplinary proceedings cannot be and should not be stayed as a matter of course. All the relevant factors for and against should be weighed and a decision taken keeping in view the various principles laid down.

(2.) Under the circumstances, what is required to be seen is whether the departmental enquiry would seriously prejudice the delinquent in his defence at the trial in a criminal case. It is always a question of fact to be considered in each case depending on its own facts and circumstances.

(3.) It goes without saying that scope of departmental inquiry is to maintain discipline in the offices and efficiency in the public services. Therefore, the proceedings should be conducted and proceeded as expeditiously as possible. The Supreme Court has thus thought it proper not to lay down the guidelines as "inflexible rules", as to when the departmental inquiry may or may not be stayed pending criminal trial against the delinquent officer. I do not find that departmental inquiry, in any way, is going to prejudice the case of the petitioner in the pending criminal case. The enquiry officer is thus justified in not staying the enquiry which involves determination of the question connected with effective administration of justice by not handing over the charge, not following orders, not keeping articles in identifiable condition.