C.A.V. Order

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question legality, validity and correctness of order dated 13-2-2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Circuit Sitting: Bilaspur (for short, 'the CAT') in Original Application No.203/581/ 2022, by which the petitioner's original application has been dismissed by the CAT finding no merit.

2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop: -

3. The petitioner at the relevant point of time was working as Chief Staff & Welfare Inspector under the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, South East Central Railway (SECR), Nagpur Division since 23-7-2020. On a written complaint made by Smt. Kunda Charan Selote, W/o Late Charan Jairam Selote to the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Anti-Corruption Branch, Nagpur on 24-8-2021, offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered against the petitioner on 25-8-2021, as he was caught red-handed while taking bribe of ₹ 2,00,000/- from Smt. Kunda Charan Selote and was arrested on 26-8-2021 and ultimately released on bail on 30-8-2021 leading to filing of charge-sheet against him before the Court of CBI, Chandrapur, Maharashtra on 20-12-2021 for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended in the year 2018 after obtaining sanction for prosecution under Section 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act from the competent authority i.e. the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, SECR, Nagpur on the basis of documents therein. Thereafter, on 4-3-2022, the competent authority issued charge-sheet to the petitioner under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1968 for violation of Rule 3.1(vi), (xviii)(i) & (iii) of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966 containing Article of Charge supported by the Statement of Imputation of Misconduct, list of documents and list of witnesses on the allegation that he has committed gross misconduct inasmuch as he demanded ₹ 2,40,000/- as illegal greatification from Smt. Kunda Charan Selote, W/o Late Charan Jairam Selote, Ex- Track Maintainer, Chanda Fort to facilitate compassionate employment of her son Mr. Ashwin Selote in the Railways and to process the settlement of dues. While accepting part payment of ₹ 2,00,000/- from Smt. Kunda Charan Selote on 26-8-2021, the petitioner was caught red-handed and arrested by CBI, ACB, Nagpur and by his act, the petitioner has misused his official position for personal gain and tarnished the image of the Railways.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the documents and witnesses of criminal case and departmental enquiry, both, are similar, as the CBI final report/charge-sheet dated 20-12-2021 lists 23 prosecution witnesses, whereas the departmental enquiry charge memorandum dated 4-3-2022 lists 8 witnesses for the departmental enquiry and the witnesses in both proceedings demonstrate the complete overlap of the departmental witnesses within the criminal prosecution witnesses. As such, if the departmental proceedings are not stayed pending the criminal trial, it would compel the accused/petitioner herein to disclose his defence prematurely and it will seriously cause prejudice to him in the departmental proceeding leading to filing of original application before the CAT for stay of disciplinary proceeding till the pending criminal case is concluded.

5. The learned CAT by its impugned order relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another (1999) 3 SCC 679 and further relying upon the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and another v. Bihari Lal Sidhana (1997) 4 SCC 385 and also placing reliance upon its earlier decision in the matter of Subodh Kumar Singh v. Union of India and others Original Application No.200/691/2022, decided on 2-1-2025, proceeded to dismiss the application leading to filing of the present writ petition before this Court.

6. Mr. Animesh Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that since the charges in the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are identical/common and the witnesses are also common in both the proceedings, the case falls squarely within the exception carved out in Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra) (paragraph 22) as every single document, every single witness and the entire factual matrix is common to both the proceedings to which the learned CAT also partly accepted in final stage, but later-on declined to entertain by wrongly invoking the principles of law laid down in Bihari Lal Sidhana (supra), which is inapplicable to the facts of the present case. Mr. Tiwari would further rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of State Bank of India and others v. Neelam Nag and another (2016) 9 SCC 491 in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court have upheld the stay of departmental proceedings at least until the prosecution witnesses are examined in the criminal trial. He would finally submit that if the departmental enquiry proceeds at this stage, the petitioner will be compelled to cross-examine and respond to the very witnesses who will later appear in the criminal court against him and it will cause serious prejudice to the petitioner's right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and this would be the precise mischief that the exception in Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra) seeks to prevent prejudice to the petitioner. Thus, the learned CAT has wrongly invoked the principles of law laid down in Bihari Lal Sidhana (supra) and as such, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the criminal proceedings be directed to be stayed.

7. Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the Union of India/respondents, would submit that the CAT is absolutely justified in dismissing the original application by correctly applying the principles of law, as criminal proceeding is unduly delayed since charge-sheet was filed on 20-12- 2021 and for the last five years nothing has been done in the criminal case as the petitioner seeks to ensure that criminal proceeding should not proceed further any how and departmental proceedings are also stayed by any manner. He would rely upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of Avinash Sadashiv Bhosale (dead) Through LRs. v. Union of India and others (2012) 13 SCC 142, Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited v. Girish V. and others (2014) 3 SCC 636 and Shashi Bhushan Prasad v. Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force and others (2019) 7 SCC 797 to buttress his submission.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection.

9. The short question involved in the writ petition is, when on the identical set of facts an employee is being subjected to criminal prosecution as well as a disciplinary proceeding, as to which of these proceedings are to proceed or whether both should be permitted to continue simultaneously?

10. In the matter of Kusheshwar Dubey v. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd and others (1988) 4 SCC 319, where criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings are grounded on the same set of facts, the Supreme Court referring to its earlier decisions, held that the disciplinary proceedings are normally to be stayed, and observed as under: -

          7. 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 receive 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.

          8. In the instant case, the criminal action and the disciplinary proceedings are grounded upon the same set of facts. We are of the view that the disciplinary proceedings should have been stayed and the High Court was not right in interfering with the trial court's order of injunction which had been affirmed in appeal."

11. Similarly, in the matter of Indian Overseas Bank, Annasalai and another v. P. Ganesan and others (2008) 1 SCC 650, the Supreme Court has held that mere pendency of criminal proceedings does not mean that the departmental proceedings shall be stayed automatically. The Supreme Court has further held that before exercising its jurisdiction, the courts must see whether the charges and evidence in both the proceedings are common or whether any complicated issues of law are involved.

12. In Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra), the Supreme Court after considering its earlier decisions summed up as follows: -

          (i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately.

          (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 departmental 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 honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest.

13. The Supreme Court in the matter of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and others v. Sarvesh Berry (2005) 10 SCC 471, has held that where there is delay in disposal of criminal case, departmental proceedings can proceed so as to facilitate early conclusion.

14. Coming to the facts of the case, in the instant case, though the petitioner has vehemently contended that both the criminal case and departmental proceedings are based on identical set of facts and the witnesses and documents in both the proceedings are also common, but in the criminal case charge-sheet was instituted on 20-12-2021 and still the evidence has not begun and the case is pending consideration, except contending that witnesses and documents are identical, the petitioner has failed to establish that complicated questions of law and fact are involved in the matter. However, considering the charge against the petitioner, as the petitioner has been caught red-handed of accepting a bribe of ₹ 2,00,000/- from Smt. Kunda Charan Selote - a widow whose son's compassionate employment and other dues are to be settled on account of sudden demise of her husband, and that there is no bar in proceeding of departmental proceeding and criminal case simultaneously and further, involvement of complicated questions of law and fact has not been established and considering the delay of five years in commencing the trial, it would be inappropriate to stay the departmental proceeding as held in paragraph 22(v) of the decision in Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra). In that view of the matter, we do not find any jurisdictional error in the order impugned passed by the CAT. The writ petition deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).