LexHINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. versus SARVESH BERRY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. B c v. SAR VE SH BERRY DECEMBER 9, 2004 [ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] Service Law : Hindustan Petroleum Management Emp/oye,zs' Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1976 : Departmental proceedings-Simultaneous continuance of cr.iminal case and departmental proceedings-Permissibility of-Employee found in pos- session of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income-Charge D sheet filed against him-Departmental proceedings also initiated against him-Employee filed writ petition for stay of departmental proceedings as the issues involved in both departmental enquiry and the criminal case were indentical-High Court directed that departmental proceedings were not to be continued until conclusion of criminal case-Corroctness of-Held E : There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with the departmental enquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the charge in the criminal trial is of a grave nature involving complicated questions of law-Where there is delay in the disposal of a criminal case the departmental proceedings can be proceeded with so that the conclusion can be arrived at earlier- On facts, departmental proceedings and criminal case are allowed to F continue simultaneously. Words & Phrases : "Known sources of income"-Meaning of-Jn the context of Section G 13(l)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The respondent was found to be in possession of assets dispropor- tionate to his known sources of income. A charge sheet was filed against the respondent. Departmental proceedings were also initiated against H the respondent. 834 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. v. SARVESH BERRY 835 The respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court praying A that the departmental proceedings should be stayed till completion of the criminal case as issues involved in both the departmental enquiry and the criminal case were identical. The High Court directed depart- mental proceedings were not to be continued until conclusion of the criminal case. Hence the appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1. It is fairly well settled position in law that on basic principles proceedings in criminal case and departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously, except in some cases where departmental proceedings and criminal case are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings are common. It is in these cases, the Court has to decide, taking into account special features of the case, whether simultaneous continuance of both would be proper. (839-D] 2. The purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution is two different and distinct aspects. The criminal prosecution is launched for an offence of violation of duty the offender owes to the society, or for breach of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfac- tion to the public. So crime is an act of commission in violation of law of omission of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. It would, there- fore, be expedient that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously 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 backdrop of its own facts and circumstances. There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously. with departmental enquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the charge in the criminal trial is of a grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law. Offence generally implies infringement of public duty, as distinguished from there private rights punishable under criminal law. When trial for a criminal offence is conducted it should be in accordance with proof of the offence as per B c D E F G the evidence defined under the provisions of the India Evidence Act, 1872. Converse is the case of departmental enquiry. The enquiry in a departmental proceedings relates to conduct or breach of duty of the H 836 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. A delinquent officer to punish 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 positi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.