LexM/S STANZEN TOYOTETSU INDIA P. LTD. versus GIRISH V & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2014] 1 S.C.R. 758 M/S STANZEN TOYOTETSU INDIA P. LTD. v. GIRISH V & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 763-768 of 2014) JANUARY 21, 2014 [T.S. THAKUR AND VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.] Service law: Disciplinary proceedings - Stay of disciplinary proceedings pending the decision of criminal C case in respect of same incident - Vacation of stay- Propriety of - Held: The disciplinary proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously in the absence of any legal bar to such simultaneity - While seriousness of the charge leveled against the employee is a consideration D for stay of disciplinary proceedings, the same is not by itself sufficient unless the case also involves complicated questions of law and fact - Even when the charge is found to be serious and complicated questions of fact and law that arise for consideration, the court has to keep in mind the fact E that departmental proceedings cannot be suspended indefinitely or delayed unduly especially where the number of accused arraigned for trial is large as is the case at hand and so are the number of witnesses cited by the prosecution. The question that arose for consideration in these F appeals was whether the High Court so also the courts below were right in holding that the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the appellant-company against its employees (respondents) ought to remain stayed pending conclusion of the criminal case instituted against G the respondents in respect of the very same incident. Partly allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. While there is no legal bar to the holding H 758 STANZEN TOYOTETSU INDIA P. LTD. v. GIRISH V 759 of the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal trial A simultaneously, stay of disciplinary proceedings may be an advisable course in cases where the criminal charge against the employee is grave and continuance of the disciplinary proceedings is likely to prejudice their defense before the criminal Court. Gravity of the charge B is, however, not by itself enough to determine the question unless the ,charge involves complicated question of law and fact. The Court examining the question must also keep in mind that criminal trials get prolonged indefinitely especially where the number of c accused arraigned for trial is large as is the case at hand and so are the number of witnesses cited by the prosecution. The Court, therefore, has to draw a balance between the need for a fair trial to the accused on the one hand and the competing demand for an expeditious 0 conclusion of the on-going disciplinary proceedings en the other. An early conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings has itself been seen by this Court to be in the interest of the employees. [Para 13] [770-C-G] 2. The charges leveled against the respondents in E the instant case were under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 356, 427, 504, 506, 114 read with Section 149 l.P.C. These are no ordinary offences being punishable with imprisonment which may extend upto 3 years besides fine. At the same time seriousness of the charge alone is F not the test. What is also required to be demonstrated by the respondents is that the case involves complicated questions of law and fact. That requirement does not appear to be satisfied in an adequate measure to call for an unconditional and complete stay of the disciplinary G proceedings pending conclusion of the trial. The incident as reported in the first information report or as projected by the respondents in the suits filed by them did not suggest any complication or complexity either on facts or law. That apart the respondents had already disclosed H 760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 1 S.C.R. A the defense in the explanation submitted by them before the commencement of the departmental enquiry in which one witness has been examined by each of the Enquiry Officers. The charge sheet was filed on 20th August, 2011. The charges were framed on 20th December, 2011. The B trial court has ever since then examined only three witnesses so far out of a total of 23 witnesses cited in the charge-sheet. Going by the pace at which the trial court is examining the witnesses it would take another five years before the trial may be concluded. The High Court c has in the judgment under appeal given five months to the trial court to conclude the trial. More than fifteen months has rolled by ever since that order, without the trial going anywhere
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.