DEPOT MANAGER, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATIONversusMOHD. YOUSUF MIYA ETC.

          DEPOT MANAGER, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD                                  A
                   TRANSPORT CORPORATION
                             v.
                   MOHD. YOUSUF MIYA ETC.

                              NOVEMBER 20, 1996
                                                                                    B
                  [K. RAMASWAMY,G.T. NANAVATI AND
                         K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.]

          Service Law :

          Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation                           c
         Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963:

          Regulation 28 (ix)-Disciplir.ary proceedings-Driver-Causing
    accident and death of victim~-Departmental action initiated for                 D
    misconduct-Also Criminal.prosecution launched for offences ztlss. 304
    (Part II) and 338 !PC-Departmental proceedings stayed by High Court
    in writ petition filed by delinquent-Held, High Court was not right in
    staying the proceedings-There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously
    with departmental inquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the charge in
    the criminal trial is ofgrave nature involving complicated questions offact     E
    and law-Jn the instant case, the charge is failure to anticipate the accident
    and prevention thereof-It has nothing to do with the culpability of the
    offence u/s. 304 part II and s.338 !PC.

          State of Rajasthan v. B.K Meena and Ors., (1996) 7 SCALE 363, F
    relied on.

          Kusheshwar Debey v. Mis Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Ors., (1988]
    4 SCC 319 & Food Corporation of India v. George Varghese and Anr.,
    (1991] Supp. 2 SCC 143, referred to.
                                                                                    G
•        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 15419 of
    1996 Etc.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 18.6.96 of the Andhra Pradesh
    High Court in W.A. No. 612 of 1996.                                             H
                                    941
    942                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.


A       Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General, B. Parthasarthy for the
    Appellant.

         L.N. Rao, R. Santhanakrishnan, P.P. Singh and S.U.K. Sagar for the
    Respondents.

B         The following Order of the Court was delivered :

          Leave Granted.

          We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

c         The facts in appeal arising out ofSLP. (C) No. 16342/96 are sufficient
    for disposal of the common controversy raised in these cases.

           This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division
    Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Cou1t, made on June 18, 1996 in W.P.
D   No. 612 of 1996. The Appellants had initiated disciplinary proceedings
    against the respondent on the imputation that on September 15, 1995 while
    driving the Corporation's double-decker vehicle near Gandhi Hospital in
    Hyderabad city, due to lack of anticipation, he had caused an accident in
    which a cyclist died. Consequently, action was initiated for misconduct
E   and enquiry was ordered for misconduct under Regulation 28(ix) of the
    Employees Conduct Rules, 1963. It would appear that prosecution has
    been launched by the police for an offence punishable under Section 304,
    Part II, IPC and in some cases under Section 338 IPC and they are pending
    trial. Therefore, the respondents filed writ petition in the High Court for
    stay of the departmental proceedings. The learned single Judge stayed the
F   proceedings. On appeal, the Division Bench confirmed the same. Thus,
    these appeals by special leave.

           It is contended by Sri Altaf Ahmad, the learned Additional Solicitor
    General appearing for the appellants that the High Court was not right in
G   directing stay of the departmental enquiry on the ground that it would
    cause prejudice to the respondents at the trial. In the criminal case, the
    question is the culpability of rash and negligent driving of the respondent.
    In the departmental enquiry, the misconduct relates to his failure to anticipate
    the accident and prevention thereof by his conduct. Therefore, there would
    be no prejudice in conducting the depa1tmental enquiry. The High Court,
H   therefore, was not right in staying the proceedings.
        DEPOTMANAGER,A.P.S. RD. Tl'f. CORPN. v. MOHD. YOUSUFMIYA       943


       In support thereof, learned counsel has placed reliance on the A
judgment of this court in State of Rajasthan v. B.K. ·Meena and Ors.,
(1996] 7 SCALE 363 Shri L.N. Rao, learned counsel for the respondent,
on the other hand, has contended that the ratio in that judgment itself
would indicate that only in grave cases, the enquiry should be pennitted to
be completed as expeditiously as possible. Otherwise, the administration
would be jeopardised. In this case, such a grave nature does not arise. The B
facts in both, the criminal case and the disciplinary enquiry constitute the
same cause of action or material disclossure of which would gravely
prejudice the defence of the respondents in the criminal cases. Therefore,
the High Court was right in staying the proceedings. In support thereof,
he placed strong reliance on the judgment of this Court in Kusheshwar
Debey v. Mis Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors., (I988] 4 SCC 319. He also C
placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Food Corporation of
India v. George Varghese & Anr., (1991] Supp. 2 SCC 143. Therein, the
question was; that whether the High Court would be justified in quashing
the enquiry proceedings, after the acquittal of the delinquent officer in the
criminal case? The High Court had held in that case that it was not expedient
to conduct enquiry after acquittal. While interfering with that view and D
holding that the employer is entitled to initiate the disciplinary proceedings,
after the acquittal, this Court made an observation that the employer fairly
had stayed its hands till the conclusion of the criminal case so that it would
not be contended that the employer intended to over-reach the judicial
proceedings. That observation, far from helping the respondents, would
go to show that it would be open to the employer to take appropriate E
disciplinary action based upon the fact situation; whether it could be
proceeded with or not would be left to the disciplinary authority and the
facts and circumstances obtainable in each case requires to be considered.

       The rival contentions give rise to the question: whether it would be
right to stay the criminal proceedings pending departmental enquiry? This     F
Court in Meena 's case had elaborately considered the entire case law
including Kusheshwar Dubey 's case relieving the necessity to consider
them once over. The Bench, to which one of us, K. Venkatawarni, J., was
a member, had concluded thus:
                                                                              G
             "It would be evident from the above decisions that each of
             them starts with the indisputable proposition that there is no
             legal bar for both proceedings to do on simultaneously and
             then say that in certain situations, it may not be 'desirable'
             'advisable' or 'appropriate' to proceed with the disciplinary
             enquiry when a criminal case is pending on identical charges.    H
    944              SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.


A         The staying of disciplinary proceedings, it is emphasised, is
          a matter to be determined having regard to the facts and
          circumstances of a given case and that no hard and fast rules
          can be enunciated in that behalf. The only ground suggested
          in the above discisions as constituting a valid ground for
          staying the disciplinary proceedings is "that the defence of
B         the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced."
          This ground has, however been hedged in by providing
          further that this may, be done in cases of grave nature
          involving questions of fact and law. In our respectful opinion,
          it means that not only the charges must be grave but that the
          case must involve complicated questions of law and fact.
c         Moreover, 'advisability', desirability'. or 'propriety', as the
          case may be, has to be determined in each case taking into
          consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case. The
          ground indicated in D.C.M. and Tata Oil Mills is not also an
          invariable rule. It is only a factor which will go into the
          sclaes while judging the advisability or desirability of staying
D         disciplinary proceedings. One of the contending consideration
          is that the disciplinary enquiry cannot be- and should not be-
          delayed unduly. So ~ar as criminal cases are concerned, it is
          well-known that they drag on endlessly where high officials
          or persons holding high public officers are involved. They
          get bogged down on one or the other ground. They hardly
E         even reach a prompt conclusion. That is the reality in spite
          of repeated advise and admonitions from this Court and the
          High Courts. If a criminal case is unduly delayed that may
          itself be a good ground for going ahead with the disciplinary
          enquiry even where the disciplinary proceedings are held
          over at an earlier stage. The interests of administration and
F         good government demand that these proceedings are
          concluded expeditiously. It must be remembered that these
          proceedings are concluded expeditiously. It must be
          remembered that undesirable elements aro thrown out and
          any charge of misdemeanur is enquired into promptly. The
G         disciplinary proceedings are meant not really to punish the
          guilty but to keep the administrative machinery unsullied by
          getting rid of bad elements. The interest of the delinquent
           officer also lies in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary
           proceedings. If he is not guilty of the charges, his honour
           should be vindicated at the earliest possible moment and if
H          he is guilty, he should be dealt with promptly according to law.
       DEPOT MANAGER, A.P.S. RD. TPT. CORPN. v. MOHD. YOUSUF MIYA    945


            It is not also in the interest of administration that persons    A
            accused of serious misdemeanour should be continued in
            office indefinitely, i.e. for long periods awaiting the result
            of criminal proceedings. It is not in the interest of
            administration. It only serves the interest of the guilty and
            dishonest. While it is not possible to enumerate the various
            factors, for and against the stay of disciplinary proceedings,   B
            we found it necessary to emphasise some of the important
            considerations in view of the fact that very often the
            disciplinary proceedings are being stayed for long periods
            pending criminal proceedings. Stay of disciplinary
            proceedings cannot be, and should not be, a matter of course.
            All the relevant factors for and against, should be weighed      C
            and a decision taken keeping in view the various principles
            laid, down in the decisions referred to above."

            There is yet another reason. The approach and the objective
            in the criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings
            is altogether distinct and different. In the disciplinay D
            proceedings, the question is whether the respondent is guilty
            of such conduct as would merit his removal from service or
            a lasser punishment,- as the case may be, whereas in the
            criminal proceedings, the question is whether the offences
            registered against him under the Prevention of Corruption E
            Act (and the Indian Penal Code, if any) are established and,
            if established, what sentence should be imposed upon him.
            The standard of proof, the mode of enquiry and the rules
            governing the enquiry and trial in both the cases are entirely
            distinct and different. Staying of disciplinary proceedings
            pending criminal proceedings, to repeat, should not be a F
            matter of course nut a considered decision, Even if stayed at
            one stage the decision may require reconsideration if the
            criminal case gets unduly delayed."

      We are in respectful agreement with the above view. The purpose of
departmental enquiry and of prosecution are two different and distinct G
aspects. The criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for 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 H
    946                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.


A efficiency of public service. It would, therefore, be expedient that the
  disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expedit:ously 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 backdroop of its own facts and
B circumstances. There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with
  departmental enquiry and trial of at criminal case unless the charge in the
  criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated questions of fact
  and law. Offence generally implies infringement of public, as distinguished
  from mere private rights punishable under criminal law. when trial for
  criminal offence is conducted it should be in accordance with proof of the
C offence as per the evidence defined under the provisions of the Evidence
  Act. Converse is the case of departmental enquiry. The enquiry in a
  departmental proceedings relates to conduct or breach of duty of the
  delinquent officer to puunish him for his misconduct defined under the
  relevant statutory rules or law. That the strict standard of proof or
  applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded is a settled legal position.
D The enquiry in the departmental proceedings relates to the conduct of the
  delinquent officer and proof in that behalf is not as high as in an offence
  in criminal charge. It is seen t!iat invariably the departmental enquiry has
  to be conducted expeditiously so as to effecctuate efficiency in public
  administration and the criminal trial will take its own course.' The nature
  of evidence in criminal trial is entirely different from the departmental
E proceedings. In the former, prosecution is to prove its case beyond
  reasonable doubt on the touchstone of human conduct. The standard of
   proof in the departmental proceedings is not the same as of the criminal
  trial. The evidence also is different from the standard point of Evidence
  Act. The evidence required in the departmental enquiry is not regulated
   by Evidence Act. Under these circumstances, what is required to be seen is
F whether the departmental enquiry would seriously prejudce the delinguent
   in his defence at the trial in a criminal case. It is always a question of fact
   to be considered in each case depending on its own facts and circumstances.
   In this case, we have seen that the charge is failure to anticipate the accident
   and prevention thereof. It has nothing to do with the culpability of the
   offence under Sections 304A and 338 IPC. Under these Circumstances the
G High Court was not right in staying the proceedings.

            The appeals are accordingly allowed, no costs.

     R.P.                                                       Appeals allowed.