KUSHESHWAR DUBEY versus BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 821 · Decided: 06-09-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA, M.N. VENKATACHALIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

KUSHESHWAR DUBEY 
v. 
A 
BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. & ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 6, 1988 
(RANGANATH MISRA AND M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, JJ.) 
B 
Disciplinary and criminal pr;;ceedings-Holding of-Simul-
taneously-Whether legal bar-Not advisable to evolve a hard and fast 
rule valid for all cases. 
The appelJant, an employee of Respondent No. 1; was subjected to 
disciplinary proceedings as also a criminal prosecution simultaneously C 
on the allegation that he physically assaulted a supervising officer. He 
tiled a civil action in the trial court asking for injunction against the 
disciplinary action pending criminal trial. The trial court stayed 
further proceedings in the disciplinary action till disposal of the crimi-
nal case. In appeal, the appellate court affirmed the aforesaid order. 
D 
However, the High Court allowed the Revision Application of the 
Respondent and set aside the impugned order on the ground that there 
is no bar for an employer to proceed with the departmental proceeding 
with regard to the same allegation for which a criminal·case is pending. 
Allowing the appeal to this Court, 
E 
HELD: 1. The order of the High Court is vacated and that of the 
trial court as affirmed in appeal is restored. The criminal action and the 
disciplinary proceedings were grounded upon the same set of facts. The 
disciplinary proceedings should have been stayed and the High Court 
was not right in interfering with the trial court's order of injunction 
F 
which had been affirmed in appeal. [826A-B) 
2(i) While there could be no legal bar for simultaneous proceed-
ings being taken, yet, there may be cases where it would be appropriate 
to defer disciplinary proceedings a.waiting disposal of the criminal case. 
In the latter class of cases it would be open to the delinquent-employee 
G 
to seek such an order of stay or injunction from the couri. [825E-F) 
J 
2(ii) Whether, 'in the facts and circumstances of a particular case, 
there should or should not be such simultaneity of the proceedings 
would then receive judicial consideration and the Court will decide in 
the given circumstances of a particular case as to whether the discipli-
H 
821 
822 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
nary proceedings should be interdicted, pending criminal trial. [825F·G] 
B 
c 
The Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Kushal Bhan, [1960] 3 
SCR 227; Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen, [1964] 7 SCR 555 
and Jung Bahadur Singh v. Baij Nath Tiwari, [1969] 1SCR134, relied 
upon. 
Rama P. C. v. Superintendent of Police, Kolar & Anr., AIR 1967 
54 Mysore 220; Ali Mohd. & Ors. v. Chairman T.A. & C. Udhampur, 
[1981] 2 SLR 225; Moulindra Singh v. The Deputy Commissioner & 
Ors., [1973] LIC 6 1564; Shaikh Kasim v. Superintendent of Post 
Office, Chingletut, AIR 1965 Mad. 502; Khusi Ram v. Union of India, 
[1974] LIC 553 and Project Manager, ONGC v. Lal Chand Wazir 
Chand Chandna, [1982] I SLR 654, referred to. 
3. It is neither possible nor advisable to evolve a hard and 
fast, straight-jacket· formula valid for all cases and <1f general 
application without regard to the particularities of the individual· 
D situation. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3129 
of 1988 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.7.1987 of the Patna High 
E Court in Civil Revision No. 128 of 1987 (R). 
R.K. Jain, Rakesh K. Khanna and R.P. Singh for the Appellant. 
R.N. Sachthey and Anip Sachthey for the Respondents. 
F 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
ORDER 
Special leave granted .. 
G 
The appellant is an employee in the Balihari Colliery of the 
Respondent No. 1 and in 1986 was working as an electrical helper. On 
the allegation that .he physically assaulted a supervising officer by 
[ 
name S.K. Manda!, he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings as 
also a criminal prosecution. Since the disciplinary proceeding as also 
the criminal trial were taken simultaneously, the appellant filed a civil 
H action in the court of Munsif at Dhanbad asking for injunction against 
] 
K. DUBEY v. BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. 
823 
the disciplinary action pending criminal trial. On 6.12.1986, the 
Munsif made an order staying further proceedings in the disciplinary 
action till disposal of the criminal case. The appeal of the Respondent 
No. 1 against the order of learned Munsif was dismissed on 3 lst 
March, 1987, by the appellate court. Thereupon the Respondent No. 1 
moved the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction, The High Court by 
its order dat

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