Departmental Proceedings And Proceedings In Criminal Case Can Proceed Simultaneously: CAT Jabalpur

The Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur bench of Justice Akhil Kumar Srivastava (Judicial Member) and Kumar Rajesh Chandra (Administrative Member) held that departmental proceedings and proceedings in criminal case can proceed simultaneously, as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. It held that the purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution are two different and distinct aspects. Brief Facts: The matter pertained to the issuance of a charge sheet to the Applicant during his tenure as a Postal Assistant at the Head Office in Raipur. The charge sheet alleged negligence resulting in a loss of Government funds and accepting a deposit of Rs.10,000 from a postal agent without recording it in the postal records, leading to financial loss for the Department. Subsequently, two criminal cases were filed against the Applicant, and following a departmental inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority ordered the Applicant's dismissal from service. Despite an appeal, the Appellate Authority upheld the decision. Feeling aggrieved, the Applicant approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur (“Tribunal”) and filed an original application. The Applicant contended that since criminal cases were already registered against him for the same incident, the Department should not have pursued a departmental inquiry. Notably, the criminal cases resulted in the Applicant's acquittal in 2017. Following his acquittal, the Applicant sought reinstatement through a representation to the Department. However, the Department purportedly disregarded his plea, rejecting it in what the Applicant describes as a mechanical manner. In response, the department argued that under the Government of India's decision 5(5) pursuant to Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the Department has the authority to proceed with departmental proceedings even when criminal trials on identical charges are ongoing. It maintained that the departmental inquiry was conducted in accordance with the rules, affording ample opportunities for the Applicant's defense. Observations by the Tribunal The Tribunal held that there is a nuanced distinction between departmental proceedings and criminal prosecution with their distinct purposes and held that there is an absence of any inherent bar against conducting them simultaneously. It held that criminal prosecution aims to address offenses against society or breaches of public duty, whereas departmental inquiries serve the purpose of maintaining discipline and efficiency within public service. While acknowledging the need for expeditious completion of disciplinary proceedings, the Tribunal refrained from prescribing rigid guidelines, stressing that each case warrants consideration based on its unique circumstances. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that there are differing standards of proof and legal frameworks governing criminal trials and departmental inquiries. In criminal proceedings, adherence to the Indian Evidence Act, of 1872, dictates the burden of proof and the evaluation of evidence. Conversely, departmental inquiries focus on assessing the conduct or breach of duty of the accused officer, with a less stringent standard of proof and the exclusion of strict evidentiary rules. The Tribunal held that these disparities in procedural requirements and evidentiary standards warrant no interference in the simultaneous progression of both proceedings. Addressing the issue of acquittal in a criminal case, the Tribunal reiterated that such an outcome does not automatically entitle an employee to reinstatement. It held that the appointing authority retains the discretion to assess the seriousness of the offense and make decisions accordingly. The Tribunal noted that the departmental proceedings established the Applicant's misappropriation of government funds, despite ample opportunities for defense. Consequently, even though the Applicant was acquitted in the criminal case due to the "benefit of the doubt," the Tribunal held that this acquittal did not oblige the department to reinstate him. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the original petition. Case Title: Bhuneshwar Prasad Sharma vs Union of India and ors. Case Number: Original Application No.203/1140/2018 Advocate for the Applicant: Shri A.V. Shridhar Advocate for the Respondent: Shri Tushar Dhar DiwanClick Here To Read/Download Order

Departmental Proceedings And Proceedings In Criminal Case Can Proceed Simultaneously: CAT Jabalpur

Rajesh Kumar

Tags