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
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
