Rajiv Katiyar v. Union of India

to First Information Report (FIR) dated 18-9-2015 by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) under Sections 7 & 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the allegation that he has demanded and accepted illegal gratification of ₹ 25,000/- on 28-4-2015 from one Mr. Vijay Kumar, Assistant Loco Pilot, for favouring him in the matter of violation of safety norms by him. Subsequently, the petitioner was also charge- sheeted being Charge Sheet No.6/2015 before the Court of the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Raipur and trial commenced against him upon registration of Criminal Case No.1191/2015. Thereafter, on 24-9-2017, the petitioner was also subjected to departmental proceeding by issuance of memorandum of charges under the provisions of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 on the ground that he has accepted illegal gratification from Mr. Vijay Kumar, Assistant Loco Pilot, for violation of safety norms. {W.P.(S)No.7126/2023} Thereafter, on 20-4-2018, charges were framed against the petitioner and on 10-7-2018, the petitioner filed a representation based on the Railway Board Memorandum dated 1-8-2007 for staying the departmental proceeding till the conclusion of criminal trial which was accepted by the competent authority and orders dated 7-9-2018 & 6-8-2019 were passed finding merit and substance as well and disciplinary proceeding was stayed. However, on 17-2-2020, 25-2-2020 & 9-6-2020, the competent authority issued memo regarding continuation of departmental proceeding consequent to which the petitioner filed O.A. No.203/2020 before the CAT for keeping the departmental proceeding in abeyance till the conclusion of criminal trial in which the learned CAT stayed the departmental proceeding on 5-8-2020, however, by the impugned order dated 11-8-2023, it has been vacated and the original application has been dismissed finding that no case is made out for staying the departmental proceeding against which this writ petition has been preferred.

5. Return has been filed opposing the writ petition stating that on same set of facts, criminal proceeding and departmental proceeding both can simultaneously continue and in that view of the matter, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

6. Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that since the charges in criminal trial / charge-sheet and memorandum of statement both are based one and same facts that the petitioner has demanded illegal gratification from Mr. Vijay {W.P.(S)No.7126/2023} Kumar, Assistant Loco Pilot, for violation of safety norms, which Mr. Vijay Kumar has violated, the charges are one and same and as such, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of State Bank of India and others v. Neelam Nag and another1, the trial deserves to be stayed for a particular period by granting the writ petition.

7. Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the Union of India / respondents, would submit that it is not a hard & fast rule that if criminal trial and departmental proceeding are based on same facts, criminal proceeding has to be stayed for indefinite point of time, as charge-sheet was filed in the instant case on 24-9-2017 and the competent authority had already stayed the departmental proceeding on 7-9-2018/6-8-2019 and only in the year 2023, it was vacated as trial could not be concluded within reasonable time, as such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed affirming the order of the CAT.

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

9. In order to consider the plea raised at the Bar, it would be appropriate to firstly notice relevant judgments of the Supreme Court on the issue where disciplinary proceeding and criminal proceeding can go on simultaneously on same facts of the case.

10. In the matter of Depot Manager, A.P. State R oad Transport 1 (2016) 9 SCC 491 {W.P.(S)No.7126/2023} Corporation v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya and others2, a Three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court pointing out the distinction between the purpose of the said criminal trial and departmental proceeding held that nature of evidence and standard of proof in the said two types of proceedings is entirely different. In that regard, for staying disciplinary proceeding in such cases, it is not 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 and each case requires to be considered in the backdrop of its own facts and circumstances. Relying upon its earlier decision in the matter of State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena3, it has been held in paragraph 8 of the report as under: - “8. We are in respectful agreement with the above view. The purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution are two different and distinct aspects. The criminal prosecution is launched for an offence in violation of a duty, the offender owes to the society or for breach of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. So 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