Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) dated 20.11.2013 in Original Application No.755/2012, by which the MAT stayed the departmental enquiry against the respondent, Raju Vishwanath Bhushanwar, pending disposal of Criminal Case No.13/2012. The respondent was working as an Accounts Officer with the office of State Consumer Redressal Forum, Nagpur. He was caught red-handed while accepting a bribe of Rs.500 for releasing the security deposit of a complainant. An FIR was lodged, and a criminal case was registered. The departmental enquiry was initiated by a chargesheet dated 28.06.2012. The respondent approached the MAT seeking stay of the departmental enquiry, which was granted. The State argued that there is no rule that departmental enquiry must be stayed pending criminal proceedings, and relied on decisions of the Supreme Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. T. Srinivas and Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited v. Girish V., which hold that departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously. The High Court agreed, noting that the standard of proof in departmental enquiry is preponderance of probabilities, which is different from the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt. The court set aside the MAT's order and allowed the departmental enquiry to proceed. The writ petition was allowed, and the rule was made absolute.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Departmental Enquiry - Stay of Enquiry - Pendency of Criminal Case - The MAT stayed the departmental enquiry against the respondent, an Accounts Officer caught red-handed accepting a bribe of Rs.500, pending criminal case. The High Court held that there is no straight jacket formula that departmental enquiry must be stayed due to pendency of criminal proceedings. The standard of proof in departmental enquiry is preponderance of probabilities, which is different from criminal trial. The impugned order was set aside and the enquiry was allowed to proceed. (Paras 2-5) B) Service Law - Departmental Enquiry - Simultaneous Proceedings - The court relied on the decisions in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. T. Srinivas and Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited v. Girish V., which clarify that departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings can go on simultaneously, and there is no bar. The MAT's reliance on Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd was misplaced as that case has been explained in later decisions. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) erred in staying the departmental enquiry against the respondent pending disposal of the criminal case, and whether there is a legal rule that departmental enquiry must be stayed if a criminal case is pending.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order of the MAT dated 20.11.2013, and directed that the departmental enquiry against the respondent shall proceed. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Departmental enquiry and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously
- no automatic stay of departmental enquiry due to pendency of criminal case
- standard of proof in departmental enquiry is preponderance of probabilities
- not beyond reasonable doubt
