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

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 941 · Decided: 20-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI, K. VENKATASWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
DEPOT MANAGER, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD 
A 
TRANSPORT CORPORATION 
v. 
MOHD. YOUSUF MIYA ETC. 
NOVEMBER 20, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY,G.T. NANAVATI AND 
K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation 
Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963: 
B 
c 
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 of grave nature involving complicated questions of fact 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. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 15419 of 
1996 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.6.96 of the Andhra Pradesh 
G 
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 : 
c 
Leave Granted. 
We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 
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. YOUSUFMIY A 
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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.