S.Vijay Kumar v. The Lieutenant Governor (Disciplinary Authority)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] ...

WPA/173/2021 S. Vijay Kumar Vs.

The Lieutenant Governor (Disciplinary Authority) Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar ... for the petitioner Ms. Anjili Nag ... for the respondents December 15, 2022 [SR] Item No.1 The Court has heard the parties.

Affidavit of service has been filed and is taken on record.

The only issue remains for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner should be stayed in view of the pending parallel criminal proceedings.

It is submitted by Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner that since the trial has commenced, it would be in the interest of justice that the respondent-employer awaits conclusion of the trial. It is now well settled, in series of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, from the case of Capt.M. Paul Anthony vs Bharat Gold Mines Ltd reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 that there is no absolute bar on disciplinary and criminal proceedings proceeded parallely.

It is essentially for an employer to chose, depending on the nature of the charges and evidence required to be adduced and proved as to whether it would want to await the decision of the criminal court. In the instant case, it is clear from the records and the submissions of Ms. Anjili Nag, learned counsel for the employer that the employer does not to wait for the decision of the criminal court. They wish to proceed with the enquiry proceeding.

Further it is equally well settled that even acquittal in criminal court, would not debar the employer from taking disciplinary action in respect of the self-same charges against an employee.

This Court disposes of the writ petition directing as follows:- (a) The enquiry against the writ petitioner shall be recommenced and concluded within two months from date.

(b) The enquiry shall recommence from the stage of examination of the first witness of the employer. The allegation of the writ petitioner that the enquiry officer is biased, has not been gone into by this Court and is left open to be agitated later, if so advised. WPA/173/2021 stands disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.

All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

( Rajasekhar Mantha, J. )