HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS, GENERAL SECRETARY, KOROAPUT DIVISION AND ANR. Vs. HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED, KORAPUT DIVISION, REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these writ applications, Petitioner No. 1 is a Trade Union espousing cause of employees of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Koraput Division functioning at Sunabeda in the district of Koraput (hereinafter referred to either as Hal' or employer') and Petitioner No. 2 is an employee. The Petitioners canvass the oft posed plea regarding, non -desirability and impropriety of simultaneously continuing departmental proceedings and criminal investigation trial. Since the points in dispute are identical, the writ applications were heard analogous and are disposed of by this judgment which shall govern all the cases, The factual averments are more or less undisputed except some amount of difference as to the subject -matter of adjudication in the departmental proceedings and criminal investigation trial.

(2.) THE Petitioners claim that on false allegations of improper behaviour and misconduct of Petitioner No. 2 in each of the cases, F.I.R., was lodged and consequently investigation, by police authorities were set in motion. On the basis of a charge -sheet submitted, the matter is pending adjudication in G.R. Case No. 651 of 1988 in the Court of the learned Sub -divisional Judicial Magistrate. Koraput. On the self -same allegations relating to the same alleged incident, departmental proceedings have been initiated and the Petitioners have been required to show cause. According to the Petitioners, continuance of two parallel proceedings, one in the Court of law and another by way of disciplinary proceedings is unauthorised and would cause irreparable prejudice to the concerned employees. It is submitted that defence of the employees concerned will be greatly impaired and they may be required to disclose their defence in advance in departmental proceedings if the same are not stayed pending completion of the trial by the criminal Court. Strong reliance is placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kusheshwar Dube v. Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. and Ors. reported in : A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 2118, which according to the Petitioners highlights the desirability of keeping departmental proceedings frozen till disposal of the proceeding in the Court of law. On the other hand, the employer -HAL asserts that the Supreme Court never laid down that in all cases departmental proceedings are to be stayed notwithstanding the nature of allegation and the points involved for adjudication. On the other hand, it is submitted, the Court has recognised the rights of the employer to continue the departmental proceedings notwithstanding the pendency of a proceeding before a Court of law. It is also asserted that there is no basis for the employee concerned to claim that his defence shall be prejudiced as he has already submitted a reply in response to the show cause issued in the departmental proceeding. Further the subject -matters of dispute being different, the ratio of the decision in the case of Kusheshwar Dubey (supra) has no application. Reliance has been placed on the decision of various Courts in support of the contention that there, according to the Petitioners, after consideration of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, it has been held that departmental proceedings can be continued.

(3.) I agree.