M. Veeranna, v. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation,
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 3283 of 2016 Date : 08-03-2016 Between :
M Veeranna S/o M Chinna Thimmanna R/o Malapet, Mahaboobnagar dist Petitioner And Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Rep by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Hyderabad and another Respondents The Court made the following:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.3283 of 2016
ORAL ORDER:
Petitioner joined the respondent corporation as Shramic on 28.2.1989, earned his promotions and presently working as mechanic. By the proceedings dated 31.12.2015, he was placed under suspension and was also served with charge sheet on the same date. The charge sheet alleges that extra scrap material was found in bus No.AP 11 Z 3732 without entering in the MTD-68/B No.AO/833096 dated 17.12.2015, vehicle transfer form and vehicle guide sheet and same amounts to misconduct.
2. Petitioner challenges the charge sheet as well as the suspension order in this writ petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri V Narasimha Goud and learned standing counsel for respondent corporation Sri Mayur Reddy.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that on the same allegations, the Depot Manager, Gadwal of respondent corporation filed a complaint on 19.12.2015 in Gadwal Town Police Station and same was registered as FIR No. 299/2015. The sum and substance of the allegation in the complaint is same as in the charge sheet served on the petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner therefore submits that when on the same issue a complaint is lodged with the police and police is investigating the crime, the disciplinary authority ought not to have initiated disciplinary proceedings. Initiation and continuation of the disciplinary proceedings even before the conclusion of the investigation by the police is unjust and if police files charge sheet citing the petitioner as accused, the disclosure of defense in the disciplinary proceedings and findings recorded therein would adversely affect the petitioner in setting up his defense in the criminal case.
5. By placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court i n NOIDA ENTERPRENEURS ASSOCAITION Vs NOIDA AND OTHERS[1] and decision of this Court in P. VENKA REDDY Vs SENIOR DIVISIONAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, VIJAYAWADA AND ANOTHER[2], learned counsel contended that whenever the allegations in the criminal complaint and the charge sheet are same, the witnesses are same and material facts are same, the disciplinary proceedings should not be continued. In the case on hand, the allegation is same, witnesses are same and the substance of the charge is that petitioner illegally took away the scrap without accounting for and therefore amounts to theft of the material belonging to the respondent corporation.
6. Learned standing counsel opposed the claim of the petitioner by placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court NOIDA ENTERPRENEURS ASSOCIATION (cited supra) and DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND ANOTHER Vs S.SAMUTHIRAM [3]. Learned standing counsel contended that the settled principle of law is that merely because a criminal complaint is lodged and criminal proceedings are initiated, the disciplinary proceedings need not be stalled. Only in exceptional circumstances where there are complicated questions of law and fact are involved, the disciplinary proceedings can be stayed. Learned standing counsel further submitted that even in such cases, the Courts have taken the view that it is not necessary to stall the disciplinary proceedings unless petitioner satisfies that continuation of the disciplinary proceedings would adversely affect his defense before the competent Court.
7. Learned standing counsel contended that in the case on hand, it is only at the stage of investigation and in view of decision of
this Court in W.P.No.43044 of 2015 dated 20.1.2016, petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed.
8. Disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings operate in two different fields. Disciplinary action relates to employer losing trust and confidence on the employee on account of alleged misconduct affecting the image and reputation of the employer. Criminal proceedings relate to committing of crime by a person in public employment, during the course of his employment and in gross abuse of his position in the service. If employee indulges in acts of misconduct which also attract criminal prosecution, ordinarily employer not only initiates departmental action but also lodges complaint with the police.
9. Before taking disciplinary action against an employee in public service, the employer is required to follow due process and on establishment of charges leveled against him, appropriate punishment can be imposed. In domestic enquiry, on the charges leveled against the employee what is required is preponderance of probabilities of the allegations leveled against him. Circumstantial evidence can be taken into consideration to hold that the charge is proved and to impose appropriate punishment.
10.
Nature of evidence required in the departmental proceedings is quite different from the nature of evidence that is required in criminal proceedings. Criminal law requires that the charges leveled against a person must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and burden lies on the prosecution to establish the charges. Any deficiency and element of doubt will go against the prosecution.
11. The issue that frequently crops up in service disputes is desirability of continuing disciplinary proceedings while criminal proceedings are pending on the same issue. There is long line of precedents on the issue of desirability to continue domestic enquiry
pending criminal investigation/trial.
12. In W.P.No.43044 of 2015 similar issue has come up for consideration. On review of precedents on the subject, this Court noted that broad principle evolved in long line of precedents is, ordinarily, the disciplinary action should not be stayed even when criminal cases are pending on the same set of facts and law and therefore the prayer to differ disciplinary proceedings pending investigation into crime cannot be granted.
13. In the instant case also since criminal complaint lodged by the respondent corporation is at the stage of investigation, it cannot be said that prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if he participates in the domestic enquiry. Therefore, it is not a case where the domestic enquiry should be stalled. The prayer sought for petitioner cannot be granted. However, if the investigation in Crime No. 299 of 2015 results in filing of charge sheet and domestic enquiry is not completed before the charge sheet is filed, it is open to the petitioner to apply to the disciplinary authority to stay the domestic enquiry till the criminal case is disposed of. It is also made clear that any statement made by the petitioner during the course of the domestic enquiry cannot be used against the petitioner in the criminal proceedings and cannot be treated as disclosure of material evidence by the petitioner.
14.
Subject to above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Having regard to the same, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, are closed.
__________________ P NAVEEN RAO,J DATE: 08.03.2016 TVK
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No. 3283 of 2016 Date : 08-03-2016 Tvk [1] AIR 2007 SC 1161 [2] 2009 (6) ALD 111 [3] (2013) 1 SCC 598