IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.H.G.RAMESH ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.28258/2017 (S-CAT) BETWEEN:
K.V.SRINIVAS PRASAD S/O.V.VENKATAPATHY AGED 45 YEARS RESIDING AT No.126, 24TH CROSS 11TH MAIN, I STAGE “D” BLOCK, J.P.NAGAR MYSORE-570 031 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI KIRAN S. JAVALI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA BY SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-110 001 2. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX VINAYA MARG, SIDDARTH NAGAR MYSORE-570 011 3. ASST. COMMISSIONER (VIG) O/O.COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX VINAYA MARG, SIDDARTH NAGAR MYSORE-570 011 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JEEVAN J. NEERALAGI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 10.04.2017 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 170 / 00166 / 2017 AT ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE SAME AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Ag.CJ (Oral):
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 10.04.2017 (Annexure-A) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, dismissing the petitioner’s Application No.170/00166/2017. Operative portion of the impugned order reads as follows:
“9. On careful examination of the facts of the case, we are clearly of the view that there is absolutely no bar in taking up the disciplinary proceedings by the respondents while the criminal proceeding is still pending. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the action taken by the respondents to take up the disciplinary proceedings. Hence, we hold that the present OA is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself.”
2. We have heard Sri Kiran S.Javali, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the disciplinary proceeding requires to be deferred till the conclusion of the criminal case. In our opinion, the contention is devoid of merit. This Court in D.G.Manjunath vs. Karnataka Lokayukta & Ors. [ILR 2017 KAR 1429] after referring to a three Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Ajit Kumar Nag v. General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. [(2005) 7 SCC 764] has held as follows:
“5. As stated by the three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Ajit Kumar Nag extracted above, termination of criminal proceedings against an employee does not ipso facto absolve him from the liability arising under the disciplinary jurisdiction as per service rules. The reason stated therein is that strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental inquiries. The rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. The degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency. It is also stated that the two proceedings, criminal and departmental, are entirely different and they operate in different fields and have different objectives.
6. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ajit Kumar Nag extracted above, we reject the contention urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case will ipso facto absolve him from the liability arising under the disciplinary jurisdiction as per service rules. In our opinion, the petitioner’s acquittal in the criminal case does not preclude the Disciplinary Authority from holding a Disciplinary Inquiry against him, on the same charge made against him in the criminal case. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.”
In view of the above, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Yn.
Petition dismissed.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE