EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED & ORS. versus RABINDRA KUMAR BHARTI

Citation: [2022] 4 S.C.R. 1084 · Decided: 07-04-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.M. JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1084
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 1084
1084
EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED & ORS.
v.
RABINDRA KUMAR BHARTI
(Civil Appeal No. 2794 of 2022)
APRIL 07, 2022
[K. M. JOSEPH AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Service Law – Departmental proceedings – Respondent,
employed as a clerk with the appellant(s), was suspended by the
appellant on the complaint of demanding bribe to clear retirement
formalities and also served with a notice of departmental enquiry –
Respondent moved a writ petition – Single Judge of High Court
allowed the appellant to continue with the proceedings but ordered
the appellant to not to pass final order without the leave of the
Court – At the end of the enquiry, the appellant(s) filed an
application seeking leave to pass the final orders which was allowed
– Appeal before Division Bench of High Court – In the meantime,
respondent was dismissed from service – Division Bench of High
Court directed that the final order of dismissal of the respondent be
stayed till the disposal of the criminal case and also the order of the
dismissal against the respondent will become operative on the
criminal proceeding culminating in an order of conviction – Held:
Principle involved is that when parallel proceedings are held on
the basis of identical charges and the same evidence, the employee
should not be allowed to disclose his defence – However, Single
Judge permitted the proceeding to go on and respondent participated
in it – Division bench of High Court was not justified in passing the
impugned order as the order of dismissal was already passed by the
disciplinary authority and appellant was forced to retain the
respondent as a result of which dismissal order was to remain in
suspended animation to attain finality only if the criminal case ends
in the conviction of the respondent – Reference made to Or. 41 r.33
CPC may not have been justified in the facts of this case – Judgment
of the Division Bench set aside – It will be without prejudice to the
rights of the respondent to challenge the disciplinary proceeding in
any competent forum.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Or.41 r.33 – Scope of –
Discussed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1085
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.This is a case where there is a criminal case
against the respondent. The appellant(s) as employer also
launched disciplinary proceedings. It is undoubtedly true that this
Court has taken the view that when the charges are identical and
gives rise to complicated issues of the fact and law and evidence
is the same, it may not be appropriate to proceed simultaneously
in disciplinary proceedings, along with the criminal case. The
rationale behind the principle largely is that the employee who is
facing the disciplinary proceeding would necessarily have to take
a stand. This in turn would amount to revealing his defense and
therefore prejudice the employee in the criminal proceedings.
No doubt, this Court has laid down that it is not an absolute
embargo and the principle is one to be applied based on the facts
of each case. [Para 9][1092-B-D]
2. When the respondent was faced with the disciplinary
proceeding, he approached the High Court. Apparently, he sought
stay of the proceedings. The High Court did not deem it
appropriate to grant stay of the disciplinary proceeding. Instead,
as noticed by order dated 29.06.2017, the proceedings were
allowed to be continued. According to the appellant(s), proper
enquiry was held and the respondent participated. At the end of
the enquiry as held by the appellant in view of the order passed
by the High Court, the appellant sought permission to pass the
final order, or the appropriate order of penalty. This led to the
disposal of the writ petition itself by the Single Judge. The Single
Judge in the judgment noticed that this is a case where the
respondent had already revealed his defence by participating in
the proceedings. It is further found that order dated 29.06.2017,
which permitted the enquiry to be continued was not challenged.
The Single Judge accordingly permitted the disciplinary
proceedings to attain finality at the hands of the disciplinary
authority. The disciplinary authority accordingly passed an order
dismissing the respondent from service. No doubt this is during
the pendency of the appeal. [Para 10][1092-D-H; 1093-A]
EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED & ORS. v. RABINDRA KUMAR
BHARTI
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1086
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
3. In the appeal, the order of the disciplinary authorit

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.