advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Friday, January 24, 2014

Service matter - Stay of Departmental proceedings - Criminal proceedings - Generally no stay will be granted to stay the Departmental proceedings when criminal proceedings are pending - But in some cases, Granting stay is not wrong and is also advisable - All lower courts affirmed to grant stay of departmental proceedings - Apex court also confirmed the same but with one condition, that the criminal case should be disposed of within one years, else, automatically stay vacates = M/s Stanzen Toyotetsu India P. Ltd. …Appellant Versus Girish V & Ors. …Respondents = 2014 ( January - Vol - 1) Judis.nic.in/ S.C./ file name =41171

Service matter - Stay of Departmental proceedings - Criminal proceedings - Generally no stay will be granted to stay the Departmental proceedings when criminal proceedings are pending - But in some cases, Granting stay is not wrong and is also advisable - All lower courts affirmed to grant stay of departmental proceedings - Apex court also confirmed the same but with one condition, that the criminal case should be disposed of within one years, else, automatically stay vacates = 

            whether the High Court so also the Courts below were right in  holding  that
the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the appellant-company against  its
employees (respondents herein) ought to remain stayed pending conclusion  of
the criminal case instituted against the respondents in respect of the  very
same incident. =
 in State of Rajasthan v. B.K.Meena 1996(6)  SCC  417,
where  this  Court  reiterated  that  there  was  no  legal  bar  for   both
proceedings to go on simultaneously unless there  is  a  likelihood  of  the
employee suffering prejudice in the criminal trial. 

The  relatively  recent  decision  of  this  Court  in  Divisional
Controller,  Karnataka  State  Road  Transport  Corporation v. M.G.   Vittal
Rao (2012) 1 SCC 442, is a  timely  reminder  of  the  principles  that  are
applicable in such situations succinctly summed up in the following words:

           “(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.

           (iv) Departmental Proceedings can go on  simultaneously  to  the
           criminal trial, except where both the proceedings are  based  on
           the same set of facts and the evidence in both  the  proceedings
           is common.”
 in  Capt.  M  Paul
Anthony v. Bharat Gold  Mines  Ltd,  (1999)  3  SCC  679 

 “(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 honor  may
           be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, administration may
           get rid of him at the earliest.” =
In  the  circumstances  and  taking  into  consideration  all  aspects
mentioned above as also keeping in view the fact that all the  three  Courts
below have exercised their discretion in  favour  of  staying  the  on-going
disciplinary proceedings, we do not consider  it  fit  to  vacate  the  said
order  straightaway.  Interests  of  justice  would,  in  our  opinion,   be
sufficiently served if  we  direct  the  Court  dealing  with  the  criminal
charges  against  the   respondents   to   conclude   the   proceedings   as
expeditiously as possible but in any case within a period of one  year  from
the date of this order.  We hope and trust that the Trial  Court  will  take
effective steps to ensure that the witnesses  are  served,  appear  and  are
examined. The Court may for that purpose adjourn the case for no  more  than
a fortnight every time an adjournment is  necessary.   We  also  expect  the
accused in the criminal case to co-operate  with  the  trial  Court  for  an
early completion of the proceedings.   We  say  so  because  experience  has
shown that trials often linger on  for  a  long  time  on  account  of  non-
availability of the defense lawyers to cross-examine  the  witnesses  or  on
account of adjournments sought by them on  the  flimsiest  of  the  grounds.
All that needs to be avoided. In case, however, the trial is  not  completed
within the period of one year from the  date  of  this  order,  despite  the
steps which the Trial Court has  been  directed  to  take  the  disciplinary
proceedings  initiated  against  the  respondents  shall  be   resumed   and
concluded by the Inquiry Officer concerned.  The impugned  orders  shall  in
that case stand vacated upon expiry of the period of one year from the  date
of the order.

17.   In the result, we allow these appeals but only  in  part  and  to  the
extent indicated above. The parties  are  left  to  bear  their  own  costs.




2014 ( January - Vol - 1) Judis.nic.in/ S.C./ file name  =41171
         
       T.S. THAKUR, VIKRAMAJIT SEN                   

 REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                CIVIL APPEAL NOS.                    OF 2014
             (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.30371-30376 of 2012)


M/s Stanzen Toyotetsu India P. Ltd.                       …Appellant

      Versus

Girish V & Ors.                                    …Respondents



                               J U D G M E N T

T.S. THAKUR, J.

1.    Leave granted.



2.    The short question that falls for determination in  these  appeals  is
whether the High Court so also the Courts below were right in  holding  that
the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the appellant-company against  its
employees (respondents herein) ought to remain stayed pending conclusion  of
the criminal case instituted against the respondents in respect of the  very
same incident.

3.    The appellant-company is engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  automobile
parts in the name and style of M/s Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt.  Ltd.  while
the respondents are workmen engaged by the appellant in connection with  the
said business.  It is not in dispute that the employees  of  the  appellant-
company including the respondents are governed by Standing Orders  certified
under Industrial Employees (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.

4.    The appellant’s case is that on 19th March, 2011 at about  10.30  p.m.
the respondents with the help  of  other  Trade  Union  functionaries  stage
managed an accident making it appear as if an employee by the  name  of  Mr.
Kusumadhara had slipped and fallen in the press area. The incident  was,  it
is alleged, used as a ruse by the respondents who rushed  to  the  place  of
alleged fall only to create a  ruckus.  Appellant’s  further  case  is  that
although Mr. Kusumadhara had not sustained any injury, he was  sent  to  the
hospital in the ambulance of  the  appellant-company  and  that  instead  of
resuming the work after the alleged incident, the  respondents  stopped  the
production activity and started abusing their  superiors,  damaged  property
of the company and even assaulted senior managerial  personnel.  These  acts
of indiscipline created an atmosphere of fear and  tension  in  the  factory
and brought the production activity to a grinding  halt.  Senior  managerial
personnel injured in the incident were, according to the  appellant,  unable
to report for work for about 15 days on account of assault on them.

5.    Taking note of  the  incident  and  the  acts  of  indiscipline  which
amounted to misconduct under several provisions of the Standing  Order,  the
competent authority placed  the  respondents  under  suspension  and  issued
charge-sheets to them. The explanation submitted by the  respondents  having
been found unsatisfactory, a disciplinary enquiry was initiated and  Enquiry
Officers appointed to enquire into the allegations against the  respondents.
 The Presenting Officers have examined  one  witness  in  each  one  of  the
enquiries.

6.    The incident in question was it appears reported even  to  the  police
by one of the employees of the appellant-company who was a  witness  to  the
same, leading to the registration of Crime No.173/2011 in  Ramanagara  Rural
Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143,  147,  323,  324,
356, 427, 504, 506, 114 read with Section  149  I.P.C.  A  charge-sheet  was
filed pursuant to the said report and investigation is pending in which  the
respondents are accused of committing the offences mentioned above.

7.    While the  disciplinary  enquiry  and  the  criminal  case  were  both
pending, the respondents filed Original Suits No.326-331 of  2011  in  which
they prayed for  a  permanent  injunction  against  the  appellant  and  the
Enquiry Officers restraining them from proceeding with the  enquiry  pending
conclusion  of  the  criminal  case.  Interlocutory   Applications   seeking
temporary injunctions in each one of the suits against the on-going  enquiry
were also filed in the said suits. The applications though  opposed  by  the
appellant-company were  allowed  by  the  Principal  Civil  Judge  and  JMFC
Ramanagara by an  order  dated  13th  October,  2011  staying  the  domestic
enquiry pending against the respondents till the disposal of  criminal  case
in C.C. No.1005 of 2011.

8.    Misc. Appeals No.56/2011 and 61/2011 filed by  the  appellant  against
the said order before the Principal Senior Civil Judge  and  CJM  Ramanagara
having failed, the appellant filed Writ Petitions No.8487-8491 of 2012  (GM-
CPC) and W.P. No.9381 of 2012 (GM-CPC) before the High  Court  of  Karnataka
which petitions too failed and have been dismissed  by  the  High  Court  in
terms of a common order dated  15th  June,  2012  impugned  in  the  present
appeals.  In  the  result  the  disciplinary  enquiry  pending  against  the
respondents remained stayed pending conclusion of the  criminal  trial.  The
present appeals, as noticed earlier, assailed the correctness  of  the  said
judgment and orders.

9.    We have heard learned counsel for the parties  at  some  length.   The
only question that falls for determination in the above backdrop is  whether
the Courts  below  were  justified  in  staying  the  on-going  disciplinary
proceedings pending conclusion of the trial in the criminal case  registered
and filed against  the  respondents.  The  answer  to  that  question  would
primarily depend upon whether there is any legal bar to the  continuance  of
the disciplinary proceedings against the  employees  based  on  an  incident
which is also the subject matter of criminal case  against  such  employees.
It would also depend upon the nature of the charges  in  the  criminal  case
filed against the  employees  and  whether  the  case  involves  complicated
questions of law and fact. The possibility of  prejudice  to  the  employees
accused in the  criminal  case  on  account  of  the  parallel  disciplinary
enquiry going ahead is another dimension which will  have  to  be  addressed
while permitting or staying such disciplinary enquiry proceedings.  The  law
on the subject is fairly well- settled for  similar  issues  and  has  often
engaged the attention of this Court in  varied  fact  situations.   Although
the pronouncements of this Court  have  stopped  short  of  prescribing  any
strait-jacket formula for application to all cases  the  decisions  of  this
Court have identified the broad approach  to  be  adopted  in  such  matters
leaving it for the Courts concerned to  take  an  appropriate  view  in  the
peculiar facts and circumstances of each case that  comes  up  before  them.
Suffice it to say that there is no short cut solution to the problem.   What
is, however, fairly well settled and was not  disputed  even  before  us  is
that there is no legal bar to the conduct of  the  disciplinary  proceedings
and a criminal trial simultaneously. In Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh  State
Road Transport Corporation vs. Mohd. Yousuf Miyan (1997)  2  SCC  699,  this
Court declared that  the  purpose  underlying  departmental  proceedings  is
distinctly different from the purpose behind prosecution  of  offenders  for
commission of offences by them.  While criminal prosecution for  an  offence
is launched for violation of a duty that the offender owes to  the  society,
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  was  also
explained and highlighted only to explain that conceptually the two  operate
in  different  spheres  and  are  intended  to  serve  distinctly  different
purposes. The  relatively  recent  decision  of  this  Court  in  Divisional
Controller,  Karnataka  State  Road  Transport  Corporation v. M.G.   Vittal
Rao (2012) 1 SCC 442, is a  timely  reminder  of  the  principles  that  are
applicable in such situations succinctly summed up in the following words:

           “(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.

           (iv) Departmental Proceedings can go on  simultaneously  to  the
           criminal trial, except where both the proceedings are  based  on
           the same set of facts and the evidence in both  the  proceedings
           is common.”



10.   We may also refer to the decision  of  this  Court  in  Capt.  M  Paul
Anthony v. Bharat Gold  Mines  Ltd,  (1999)  3  SCC  679  where  this  Court
reviewed the case law  on  the  subject  to  identify  the  following  broad
principles for application in the facts and circumstances of a given case:

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




11.   In HPCL v. Sarvesh Berry (2005) 10 SCC 471 the respondent was  charged
with possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.  The
question was whether disciplinary proceedings should remain  stayed  pending
a criminal charge being examined by the competent criminal  Court.  Allowing
the appeal of the employer-corporation this Court held:




           “A 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 a grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and
           law….. Under these circumstances, what is required to be seen is
           whether the departmental enquiry would seriously  prejudice  the
           delinquent in his defense 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.”




                                                         (emphasis supplied)




12.   It is unnecessary to multiply decisions on the subject for  the  legal
position  as  emerging  from  the  above  pronouncements  and  the   earlier
pronouncements of this Court in a large number  of  similar  cases  is  well
settled that disciplinary proceedings and proceedings  in  a  criminal  case
can proceed  simultaneously  in  the  absence  of  any  legal  bar  to  such
simultaneity. It is also  evident  that  while  seriousness  of  the  charge
leveled against the employees is a consideration, the same is not by  itself
sufficient unless the case also involves complicated questions  of  law  and
fact.  Even  when  the  charge  is  found  to  be  serious  and  complicated
questions of fact and law that arise for consideration, the Court will  have
to keep in mind the fact that departmental proceedings cannot  be  suspended
indefinitely or delayed unduly.  In Paul Anthony (supra) this Court  went  a
step further to hold  that  departmental  proceedings  can  be  resumed  and
proceeded even when they may have been stayed earlier  in  cases  where  the
criminal trial does not  make  any  headway.  To  the  same  effect  is  the
decision of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. B.K.Meena 1996(6)  SCC  417,
where  this  Court  reiterated  that  there  was  no  legal  bar  for   both
proceedings to go on simultaneously unless there  is  a  likelihood  of  the
employee suffering prejudice in the criminal trial. 
What is  significant  is
that the likelihood of prejudice itself is  hedged  by  providing  that  not
only should the charge be grave but even the case must  involve  complicated
questions of law and fact.
Stay  of  proceedings  at  any  rate  cannot  and
should not be a matter of course.
The following passage is  in  this  regard
apposite:




           “there  is  no  legal  bar  for  both  proceedings  to   go   on
           simultaneously and 
then say that in certain situations,  it  may
           not be 'desirable', 'advisable' or 'appropriate' to proceed with
           the disciplinary enquiry when a  criminal  case  is  pending  on
           identical charges. 
The staying of disciplinary proceedings, is a
           matter  to  be  determined  having  regard  to  the  facts   and
           circumstances of a given case and that no hard  and  fast  rules
           can enunciated in that behalf. 
The only ground suggested in  the
           above questions as constitution a valid ground for  staying  the
           disciplinary proceedings is that the defence of the employee  in
           the criminal case  may  not  be  prejudiced.  
This  ground  has,
           however, been hedged in by providing further that  this  may  be
           done in cases of grave nature involving questions  of  fact  and
           law. 
In our respectful opinion,  it  means  that  not  only  the
           charges must be grave but that the case must involve complicated
           questions   of   law   and   fact.  
 Moreover,   'advisability',
           'desirability' or 'propriety', as the case may  be,  has  to  be
           determined in each case taking into consideration all the  facts
           and circumstances of the case.  
While  it  is  not  possible  to
           enumerate the various factors,  for  and  against  the  stay  of
           disciplinary proceedings, we found  it  necessary  to  emphasize
           some of the important considerations in view of  the  fact  that
           very often the disciplinary proceedings  are  being  stayed  for
           long periods pending criminal proceedings.
 Stay of  disciplinary
           proceedings cannot be, and should not be, a  matter  of  course.
           All the relevant factors, for and against, should be weighed and
           a decision taken keeping in view  the  various  principles  laid
           down in the decisions referred  to  above.  …  
Indeed,  in  such
           cases, it is all the more in the interest of the charged officer
           that the proceedings are expeditiously concluded.
 Delay in  such
           cases really works against him.”




                                                         (emphasis supplied)




13.   Suffice it to say that while there is no legal bar to the  holding  of
the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal trial simultaneously, 
stay  of
disciplinary proceedings may be an  advisable  course  in  cases  where  the
criminal charge against  the  employee  is  grave  and  continuance  of  the
disciplinary proceedings is likely to prejudice  their  defense  before  the
criminal Court.
Gravity of the charge is, however, not by itself  enough  to
determine the question unless the charge involves  complicated  question  of law and fact. 
The Court examining the question must also keep in  mind  that
criminal trials get prolonged indefinitely especially where  the  number  of
accused arraigned for trial is large as is the case at hand and so  are  the
number of witnesses cited by the prosecution. The Court, therefore,  has  to
draw a balance between the need for a fair trial to the accused on  the  one
hand and the competing demand for an expeditious conclusion of the  on-going
disciplinary  proceedings  on  the  other.  An  early  conclusion   of   the
disciplinary proceedings has itself been seen by this Court  to  be  in  the
interest of the employees.

14.   The charges leveled against the respondents in the  instant  case  are
under Sections 143, 147, 323,  324,  356,  427,  504,  506,  114  read  with
Section 149 I.P.C.  These are no ordinary  offences  being  punishable  with
imprisonment which may extend upto 3 years besides fine.  At the  same  time
seriousness of the charge alone is not the test. What is  also  required  to
be demonstrated by the respondents is that  the  case  involves  complicated
questions of law and fact. That requirement does not appear to be  satisfied
in an adequate measure to call for an unconditional  and  complete  stay  of
the disciplinary proceedings pending conclusion of the trial.  The  incident
as reported  in  the  first  information  report  or  as  projected  by  the
respondents in the suits filed by them does not suggest any complication  or
complexity either on facts or law.

15.   That apart the respondents have already disclosed the defense  in  the
explanation submitted by them before the commencement  of  the  departmental
enquiry in which one witness has  been  examined  by  each  of  the  Enquiry
Officers.  The charge sheet, it is evident from the  record,  was  filed  on
20th August, 2011. The charges were  framed  on  20th  December,  2011.  The
Trial Court has ever since then examined only three witnesses so far out  of
a total of 23 witnesses cited in the charge-sheet.  Going  by  the  pace  at
which the Trial Court is examining the witnesses it would take another  five
years before the trial  may  be  concluded.   The  High  Court  has  in  the
judgment under appeal given five months to the Trial Court to  conclude  the
trial.  More than fifteen months  has  rolled  by  ever  since  that  order,
without the trial going anywhere near completion.  Disciplinary  proceedings
cannot remain stayed for an indefinitely long period. Such inordinate  delay
is neither in the interest of the appellant-company nor the respondents  who
are under suspension and surviving on subsistence allowance. The  number  of
accused implicated in the case is also very large.  We  are  not  suggesting
that the incident must be taken to  be  false  only  because  such  a  large
number could not participate in  the  incident.   But  there  is  a  general
tendency to spread the net wider and  even  implicate  those  who  were  not
concerned with the commission of the offences or  who  even  though  present
committed no overt act to show that they shared the  common  object  of  the
assembly or be responsible  for  the  riotous  behaviour  of  other  accused
persons. Interest of such accused as may be innocent also cannot be  ignored
nor can they be made to suffer indefinitely just because  some  others  have
committed an offence or offences.

16.   In  the  circumstances  and  taking  into  consideration  all  aspects
mentioned above as also keeping in view the fact that all the  three  Courts
below have exercised their discretion in  favour  of  staying  the  on-going
disciplinary proceedings, we do not consider  it  fit  to  vacate  the  said
order  straightaway.  Interests  of  justice  would,  in  our  opinion,   be
sufficiently served if  we  direct  the  Court  dealing  with  the  criminal
charges  against  the   respondents   to   conclude   the   proceedings   as
expeditiously as possible but in any case within a period of one  year  from
the date of this order.  We hope and trust that the Trial  Court  will  take
effective steps to ensure that the witnesses  are  served,  appear  and  are
examined. The Court may for that purpose adjourn the case for no  more  than
a fortnight every time an adjournment is  necessary.   We  also  expect  the
accused in the criminal case to co-operate  with  the  trial  Court  for  an
early completion of the proceedings.   We  say  so  because  experience  has
shown that trials often linger on  for  a  long  time  on  account  of  non-
availability of the defense lawyers to cross-examine  the  witnesses  or  on
account of adjournments sought by them on  the  flimsiest  of  the  grounds.
All that needs to be avoided. In case, however, the trial is  not  completed
within the period of one year from the  date  of  this  order,  despite  the
steps which the Trial Court has  been  directed  to  take  the  disciplinary
proceedings  initiated  against  the  respondents  shall  be   resumed   and
concluded by the Inquiry Officer concerned.  The impugned  orders  shall  in
that case stand vacated upon expiry of the period of one year from the  date
of the order.

17.   In the result, we allow these appeals but only  in  part  and  to  the
extent indicated above. The parties  are  left  to  bear  their  own  costs.




                                                          .……………….……….…..…J.
                                                               (T.S. THAKUR)



                                                         .…..…………………..…..…J.
                                                            (VIKRAMAJIT SEN)
New Delhi
January 21, 2014

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.