Heard both sides.
2.This writ petition arose out of O.A.No.6069 of 1998 filed by the petitioners before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, it was transferred to this court and was renumbered as W.P.No.34670 of 2006.
3.The petitioners sought for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records comprised in P.R.Nos.115/97, 110 to 112/97, 114/97, 116 to 122/97 pending before the respondents and to direct the deferment of the said departmental disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicants till the completion of the criminal proceedings which are pending in respect of the very same charges and incidents before the District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri in S.C.No.117/96 and 13/97.
4.According to the petitioners, the proceedings are based upon the same set of facts and therefore, the same should be stalled. Pending the OA, the tribunal granted an interim order, dated 28.7.98, stalling the disciplinary action. Subsequently, the said order came to be extended until further orders.
5.On notice from the Tribunal, the respondents have filed a reply affidavit, dated 31.8.98, justifying the proceedings of disciplinary action. The averments found in paragraphs 3 to 5, 7 and 8 reads as follows:
"3.... the police party in which the Applicants mentioned in SlNo.1 to 12 went to the rescue of the Forest Officials, behaved in a reprehensible and high-handed manner and caused damages to the properties of the villagers and broken the locked houses and attacked the villagers. The CBI which investigated the case in Rc.No.3/S/95/SCB Madras included all the above 12 Police personnel mentioned in the O.A. as accused in the case for which charge sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore in PRC No.1/95 for the offences of 143, 147, 148, 323, 376, 342, 201, 203 r/w 34 IPC and
section 3(1)(x)(XI) and (XII) of SC and ST (PA) Act.
4.On 16.10.96 the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate Coimbatore ordered for their judicial remand and accordingly they were arrested and remanded to judicial custody at the Central Prison, Coimbatore on 16.10.96. They were released on bail by the Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.2336/96 on 18.10.96.
5.For the above delinquencies, all the Applicants mentioned in O.A. in sl.No.1 to 12 are facing charge under rule 3(b) of TNPSS(D&A) Rules for their reprehensible and criminal misconduct in having caused damages to the locked houses and assaulted the villagers of Vachathi on 20.6.92 and got arrested and remanded by the CBI on 16.10.96 vide CBI/SCB Cr.No.3/S/95. The charge memos against all the Applicants were served and the oral enquiry was posted on 30.7.98 for the examination of prosecution witness.
....
7....It is also true that a commission by name Justice Bhanumathi Commission was ordered in this affair and the Enquiry Commission has also submitted its report. It is observed in the commissions report that certain Forest Officials as being guilty of serious offences including rape and commission of atrocities against persons belonging to S.C. and S.T. It is true that the above affair was investigated into by CB CID authorities.
8....it is submitted that the CB CID after conducting a detailed enquiry over the incident of Vachathi registered a case in CBI Cr.No.3/S/95 SCB and after investigation filed charge sheet before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore for the offences u/s 147, 139, 323, 376, 342, 201 and 303 r/w
Sections 34 IPC and various other provisions including Section 3 of the S.C. and S.T. (PA) Act. It is also fact that the names of the Applicants 1 to 12 were also found in the charge sheet laid by the CBI and the case is now pending before the District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri in SC.No.117/96 and 13/97."
6.The supreme Court has considered as to whether in all such circumstances when a Government servant faces with disciplinary action and also is facing simultaneous criminal action, the disciplinary action should be stalled. In a decision in State Bank of India v. R.B. Sharma reported in (2004) 7 SCC 27, in paragraphs 7 and 8, the Supreme Court observed as follows:
7. It is a fairly well-settled position in law that on basic principles proceedings in criminal case and departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously, except where departmental proceedings and criminal case are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common.
8. The purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution are two different and distinct aspects. Criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of a duty the offender owes to the society, or for breach of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. So crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. It would, therefore, be expedient that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible. It is not, therefore, desirable to lay down any guidelines as inflexible rules in which the departmental proceedings may or may not be stayed pending trial in criminal case against the delinquent officer. Each case requires to be considered in the backdrop of its own facts and circumstances. There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental enquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the charge in the criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law. Offence generally implies infringement of public duty, as distinguished from mere private rights punishable under criminal law. When trial for criminal offence is conducted it should be in accordance with proof of the offence as per the evidence defined under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the Evidence Act). Converse is the case of departmental enquiry. The enquiry in a departmental proceeding relates to conduct or breach of duty of the delinquent officer, to punish him for his misconduct defined under the relevant statutory rules or law. That the strict standard of proof or applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded is a settled legal position. Under these circumstances, what is required to be seen is whether the departmental enquiry would seriously prejudice the delinquent in his defence at the trial in a criminal case. It is always a question of fact to be considered in each case depending on its own facts and circumstances.
7.Subsequently, in Indian Overseas Bank v. P. Ganesan reported in (2008) 1 SCC 650, the same question was considered by the Supreme Court.
8.Considering that the petitioners were charged for grave offences such as raping tribal women, the question of stalling the departmental action cannot indefinitely be postponed. In the light of the above factual matrix and the legal precedents cited above, this writ petition stands dismissed No costs.
vvk To
1.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vellore Range, Vellore.
2.The Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri