HAKUMAT RAI Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS special appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated August 4, 2005 dismissing the writ petition of the appellant. The appellant had filed the writ petition seeking direction upon the respondents to drop the departmental proceedings initiated against him during pendency of the criminal case. The facts of the case briefly are as follows:-

(2.) DURING tenure of the appellant as Branch Manager of the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (in short `the Insurance Company') at Kishangarh Branch, a criminal case bearing FIR No. RC/jai/2003/a/0004 under Sections 120-B, 409, 465, 467, 471 and 477-A IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) at Jaipur Branch against the appellant and others on March 7, 2003 and on November 15, 2003 charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and others. The case is presently pending in the Court of Special Judge, CBI Cases, Jaipur at the stage of framing of charges. Meanwhile, on March 15, 2005 a departmental proceeding was initiated against the appellant. On April 1, 2005 the charge-memo along with the statement of imputation of misconduct etc. was issued. The appellant made representation to keep the proceeding in abeyance during pendency of the criminal case. A legal notice was also served. The representation apparently did not find favour and on June 7, 2005 Smt. Jaya Balachandran, CDI, CVC, New Delhi was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Pursuant to letter of the appellant dated June 7, 2005, on July 4, 2005 the respondents appointed Shri Surjeet Singh, CDI, CVC, New Delhi as the Enquiry Officer in place of Smt. Jaya Balachandran. At this stage the appellant filed the writ petition seeking relief as indicated outset. The learned Single Judge noticed the grievance of the appellant to the effect that during pendency of the criminal case departmental proceedings cannot be initiated but disagreeing with the contention, observing that departmental proceedings can be initiated while criminal case is pending, dismissed the writ petition. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has come in appeal to the Division Bench.

(3.) IN Khusheshwar Dubey vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. , (1988) 4 SCC 319, after survey of the case law of the subject, the Supreme Court observed as under:- " The view expressed in the three cases of this Court seem to support the position that while there could be no legal bar for simultaneous proceedings being taken, yet, there may be cases where it would be appropriate to defer disciplinary proceedings awaiting disposal of the criminal case. IN the latter class of cases it would be open to the delinquent employee to seek such an order of stay or injunction from the court. Whether in the facts and circumstances of a particular case there should or should not be such simultaneity of the proceedings would then received judicial consideration and the court will decide in the given circumstances of a particular case as to whether the disciplinary proceedings should be interdicted, pending criminal trial. As we have already stated that it is neither possible nor advisable to evolve a hard and fast, strait-jacket formula valid for all cases and of general application without regard to the particularities of the individual situation. For the disposal of the present case, we do not think it necessary to say anything more, particularly when we do not intend to lay down any general guideline. "