K.C.TUNDKIA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner relying on the exposition of the Apex Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. And another; (1999) 3 SCC 679, contends that the departmental proceedings initiated against him should be deferred till the witnesses referred to in that case which are common in the departmental proceedings are examined by the regular Criminal Court if not till the final disposal of the criminal case. Reliance is placed on the dictum in paragraph 22(ii) wherein the Court has noted that the departmental proceedings and the criminal case if 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. This arrangement however is not to be resorted to mechanically but only in cases where the allegations make out grave nature of offence committed by the delinquent officer and including involving complicated questions of law and fact. Further, it is only a matter of desirability to stay the departmental proceedings. In paragraph 20 of the same decision, the Court has adverted to the two facets in this behalf. The "advisability", "desirability" or "propriety" of staying the departmental proceedings go into the scales while judging the advisability or desirability of staying the disciplinary proceedings, merely as one of the factors which cannot be considered in isolation of other circumstances of the case. It is further noted that the charges in the criminal case must, in any case, be of a grave and serious nature involving complicated questions of fact and law. The Court has further added that it would not be in the interests of administration that persons accused of serious misdemeanour should be continued in office indefinitely waiting for the result of criminal proceedings.

(3.) MORE or less, on similar lines, we had rejected another petition very recently in the case of Raj Kumar Kainth vs. State Bank of India and others, in CWP No.4301 of 2013-A decided on 19th June, 2013. The counsel for the petitioner, however, attempted to distinguish the said decision on the ground that in that case charge-sheet/ police report was yet to be filed before the Criminal Court.