CHANDI PRASAD DAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in the present writ application prays for a direction to the opposite parties 2 and 3 to stay the departmental proceeding started under Annexure-2 till conclusion of the criminal trial in T. R. No. 1 of 1993 pending before the learned Special Judge, Bhubaneswar.

(2.) THE short facts of the petitioner's case is that he was working as an Executive Engineer, Electrical under the Grid Corporation of Orissa (opp. party No. 2) and was posted at Bhubaneswar. On March 25, 1990, search was conducted in the official quarters and the native house of the petitioner by the Vigilance Department. Prosecution was launched and a case under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been instituted in the Special Court and is now pending trial in the Court of the Special Judge, Bhubaneswar after abolition of Special Court. It is stated that the total value of assets found in possession of the petitioner on the date of search was Rs. 10,35,745. 80 as against the probable saving of Rs. 4,50,104. 63 and thus, an asset worth more or less Rs. 5,85,641. 17 was found to be disproportionate to the known source of income of the petitioner. Charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. A copy of the Charge-sheet is Annexure1 and the criminal proceeding is pending trial before the learned Special Judge, Bhubaneswar. It is stated that when the matter stood thus, on May 25, 1994, opp. party No. 2 initiated a departmental proceeding against the petitioner basing upon the Charge-sheet submitted by the Vigilance Department. The charges against the petitioner in the departmental proceedings were (1) possession or movable and immovable properties disproportionate to the known and lawful source of income (2) gross misconduct. A copy of the charges framed in the departmental proceeding is Annexure-2, which was served on the petitioner on June 6, 1994 asking the petitioner to submit his written explanation within 30 days. The petitioner after receipt of the charges having found the same to be identical to the charges in the criminal proceeding pending trial, made a representation to the departmental authorities to stay the proceeding till conclusion of the criminal trial on the ground that the written explanation to the aforesaid charges by disclosing the defence will seriously prejudice the petitioner in his defence in the criminal case. A copy of the representation is Annexure-3. It is alledged that without disposing of the representation, opp. party No. 1 by order dated February 2, 1996 appointed opposite party No. 3 as the Enquiring Officer to conduct the enquiry initiated against the petitioner.

(3.) SRI D. P. Das, learned counsel on behalf of Sri S. K. Mund, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the course of enquiry a number of documents are to be proved and some witnesses are to be examined on behalf of the prosecution in order to establish the case of the prosecution and the petitioner will be examined under Section 313, Cr. P. C. where he has also to disclose his defence. Disclosure of the defence of the accused prior to the examination of witnesses for the prosecution may in all likelihood prejudice the accused in his defence. Therefore, it is his submission that if the petitioner is compelled to disclose his defence on the threat of ex parte disposal of the departmental proceeding at this stage when the trial in the criminal case is yet to commence the same would jeopardise his defence and as such in the fitness of things, the departmental proceeding should remain stayed during the pendency of the trial. It is further submitted that the accusation in the departmental proceeding is on the basis of materials collected during the investigation of the criminal case by the Vigilance Department and complicated facts are to be proved in course of criminal trial, which involves examination of a large number of witnesses and innumerable documentary evidence. The petitioner can only be able to establish his innocence through rebuttal evidence either by proving them by examination of independent witnesses or by confrontation to the prosecution witnesses. It is submitted that the petitioner is having charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the onus is on the accused to disprove the allegation levelled against him. But however, if the petitioner is to explain the charges in the departmental proceeding, there would be hardly any scope to disprove the charges in the criminal proceeding and establish his innocence since the prosecution would be aware of the possible defence before the trial starts.