LAKSHMAN PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application, prayer made by the petitioner is to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction restraining the respondents from proceeding in departmental proceeding No. 19 of 2002 till final disposal of Mithanpura P.S. Case No. 126. of 2001.

(2.) SHORT facts giving rise to the present application are that Deputy Superintendent of Police gave a report to the Mithunpura police station about the theft of one S.L.R. rifle and one magazine. According to the first information report petitioner was incharge of the armoury and hence responsible for the same. On the basis of the afoesaid report Mithunpura P.S. Case No. 122 of 2001 was registered under section 380 of the Indian Penal Code. In respect of the same occurrence a departmental proceeding has also been initiated against the petitioner and memos of charges dated 8.12.2001 and 4.1.2002 have been served on him. Petitioner filed application dated 31.1.2002 (Annexure -7) for staying the departmental proceeding till the disposal of Mithunpura P.S. Case No. 122 of 2001. It is the stand of the petitioner that without taking any decision on the prayer of the petitioner for staying the departmental proceeding till the conclusion of the criminal case, by memo dated 9.7.2002 (Annexure -9) petitioner has been asked to appear in the inquiry on 15.7.2002.

(3.) MR . Teg Bahadur Singh appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that criminal case and departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner cannot go on simultaneously. I had the occasion to consider this question in somewhat detailed manner in C.W.J.C. No. 7008 of 2002 (Sitaram Choudhary V/s. The State of Bihar and others) disposed of on 23.7.2002 and in the said case I had held as follows : (i) There is no legal bar for both proceedings i.e. criminal case and departmental proceeding to go on simultaneously; (ii) The principles of natural justice do not require that an employer must wait for the decision of a criminal case before taking action against an employee; (iii) The defence of the employee shall be prejudiced, is not a valid ground for staying the disciplinary proceeding unless and until the charge is not only of grave nature but the case also involve complicated questions of law and fact; (iv) Departmental proceeding shall not be stayed in a case in which the criminal trial is likely to be unduly delayed; (v) Stay of departmental proceeding should not be a matter of course; (vi) It is not in the interest of administration that accused of serious misdemeanour should be continued in office indefinitely awaiting the result of criminal proceeding. It only serves the interest of guilty and dishonest; (vii) The result of the departmental proceeding during the pendency of criminal case cannot be said to be mala fide; (viii) If the criminal case is unduly delayed that may itself be a good ground for going ahead with the disciplinary enquiry even where the disciplinary proceeding are held over at an early stage.