Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
1. The petitioner, who is working as Postal Assistant in the Department of Posts, challenged the charge sheet dated 6.5.2016 issued to him by the department under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 19651 by filing Original Application No.1135 of 2016 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad2. The main charge against the petitioner was that the caste certificate dated 20 August 1981 issued by Tehsildar, Lakshmangarh, district Alwar, Rajasthan certifying that the petitioner belongs to the scheduled tribe (Meena) had been cancelled by order dated 25 November 2010. The cancellation was effected after holding an enquiry in which it transpired that the petitioner had never been a resident of village Gahlawata, District Alwar as represented by him while obtaining the caste certificate. He was found to be a permanent resident of village Khushalpur, Tehsil Bilsi, District Budaun. He has thus been charged of procuring appointment by furnishing wrong information.
2. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner also made a prayer for grant of interim relief for staying the proceedings in pursuance of the impugned charge sheet. However, by the impugned order dated 9 September 2016, the prayer for interim relief has been rejected fixing 27 September 2016 as the next date in the main case.
3. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has instituted Civil Suit No.7 of 2011 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Laxmangarh, district Alwar challenging the orders passed by the authorities cancelling the caste certificate dated 20 August 1981. It is further pointed out that in a writ petition filed by the petitioner before the Rajasthan High Court arising out of proceedings for grant of interim injunction, a direction was issued to the Civil Court to decide the proceedings of the suit within a period of 12 months. It is urged that since the issue relating to the validity of the orders cancelling the caste certificate is res integra and thus, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner with the issuance of the impugned charge sheet, deserves to be stayed. In support of the said contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Stanzen Toyotetsu India P. Ltd. Vs. Girish V & others3.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Union of India vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the Tribunal rightly did not grant any interim relief to the petitioner.
5. In the case cited on behalf of the petitioner, the issue before the Supreme Court was whether the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the appellant Company against its employees should remain stayed pending conclusion of criminal case in respect of the same incident. The Supreme Court placed reliance on its earlier decision in Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. M.G. Vittal Rao4, wherein the following principles have been laid down:-
"(i) There is no legal bar for both proceedings to go on simultaneously.
(ii) The only valid ground for claiming that the disciplinary proceedings may be stayed would be to ensure that the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced. But even such grounds would be available only in cases involving complex questions of facts and law.
(iii) Such defence ought not to be permitted to unnecessarily delay the departmental proceedings. The interest of the delinquent officer as well as the employer clearly lies in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.
(ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case 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.
(iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge sheet.
(iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the Departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the depart-mental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed.
(v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honor may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, administration may get rid of him at the earliest."
7. After considering the aforesaid broad principles, the Supreme Court in that particular case was of the opinion that the courts below before whom suit was instituted for restraining the disciplinary authorities from proceeding further with the disciplinary enquiry having exercised their discretion in favour of the employee, it would not be proper to interfere with their discretion. The appeals were disposed of by directing that criminal proceedings be concluded expeditiously. It has further been provided that in case criminal trial is not concluded within one year despite the efforts by the trial court, the disciplinary proceedings shall be resumed and the enquiry concluded.
8. It is now well settled that departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously. The main consideration for deciding whether disciplinary proceedings should be continued or not during the pendency of criminal trial is based on ascertainment of the fact as to whether the defence of the employee in the criminal case is likely to be prejudiced if the departmental proceedings are permitted to continue. If both the proceedings are based on the same set of facts and the evidence, the disclosure of the defence by the delinquent in the disciplinary proceedings, even before the prosecution has led evidence in the criminal case may cause serious prejudice to him. Even there, the bar is not absolute. In case the proceedings of the criminal trial are being unduly delayed, the disciplinary proceedings, if lying stayed, could be resumed and concluded. It is for the reason that the criminal prosecution is launched for alleged violation of a duty that the offender owes to the society whereas the departmental enquiry is aimed at maintaining discipline and efficiency in service. The difference in the standard of proof and the application of the rules of evidence to one and inapplicability to the other distinguishes the one from the other. Conceptually, these two proceedings operate in different spheres and are intended to serve distinctly different purposes. In the instant case, indisputably, no criminal proceedings are pending against the petitioner. On the other hand, the petitioner has instituted the civil suit in question. The copy of the plaint has not been brought on record and thus, it is not clear as to what relief has been sought in the suit. However, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the relief claimed in the suit is for cancellation of the order by which caste certificate dated 20 August 1981 has been cancelled. Be that as it may, it is not disputed that in the civil suit though initially a stay order was passed in favour of the petitioner but it was set aside in appeal filed by the defendant to the suit. Even in the writ petition, filed by the petitioner before the High Court of Rajasthan, the only direction issued was for deciding the suit within a period of 12 months. A period of one year is about to expire since the date of issuance of the direction by the High Court. The petitioner has also not disclosed the status of the civil suit. The Tribunal having regard to these facts has rightly observed that it is not certain when the proceedings of the suit would conclude and it would not be in the interest of justice to stay the disciplinary proceedings until the suit is decided.
9. Having regard to the facts noted above, we do not find any illegality in the view taken by the Tribunal which may warrant interference by this Court. As noted above, pendency of the civil suit cannot be equated with criminal proceedings, where in certain cases, disciplinary proceedings are stayed to prevent prejudice being caused to the employee in disclosing his defence before the disciplinary authorities even before the prosecution has led its evidence in the criminal trial. Concededly, no such contingency is likely to occur in a civil suit, that too, instituted by the petitioner himself.
10. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the disciplinary authority be directed to conclude the disciplinary proceedings expeditiously, to which learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no.1 and 2 does not have any objection.
11. Accordingly, without interfering with the impugned order, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the second respondent to conclude the disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner expeditiously provided he cooperates in the same.
12. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) (Dilip Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 28.9.2016 SL