NOIDA ENTREPRENEURS ASSN. versus NOIDAAND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 1 S.C.R. 892 · Decided: 15-01-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
NO IDA ENTREPRENEURS ASSN. 
v. 
NOIDAAND ORS. 
JANUARY 15, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.K. THAKKER AND 
LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Disciplinary proceedings-Alleged irregularities in allotment, 
C 
conversion and regularisation of plots-Departmental disciplinary 
proceedings against delinquent officer kept in abeyance till finalization of 
CBI inquiry-Finally dropped on consideration of the CBI Inquiry Report-
Correctness of-Held, Order of the State Government deciding not to 
continue the departmental proceedings is incorrect and hence quashed-
D 
Standard of proof required in departmental proceedings is not the same 
as required to prove a criminal charge-Even if there is an acquittal in 
criminal proceedings the same does not bar departmental proceedings . .. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Certain irregularities were allegedly made in allotment, conversion 
and regularization of plots in New Okhla Industrial Development Authority 
(NOIDA). One man Inquiry Commission was constituted. Based on its 
report, Departmental inquiry proceedings was initiated against Respondent 
No.7, who at the relevant time was posted as the Chief Executive Officer, 
NOIDA. Since the matter was also being inquired into by the CBI, the State 
Government decided to keep the departmental disciplinary proceedings in 
abeyance till the CBI inquiry was over. The CBI submitted its report on 
consideration whereof, the State Govei:nment decided to drop the pending 
departmental proceedings against Respondent No.7. The said order of the 
State Government has been challenged before this Court. 
Setting aside the order of the State Government, the Court 
HELD: 1. The stand taken by the State Government primafacie shows 
that the State Government is interested to protect Respondent No. 7 at any 
cost. A bare perusal of the order passed by the State Government goes to 
show that the same is not based on any rational foundation. The conceptual 
difference between a departmental enquiry and criminal proceedings has 
892 
\ 
\ 
,..,.-
\ 
..... 
).. 
NOIDAENTREPRENEURSASSN. v. NOIDA&ORS. 
893 
not been kept in view. Even orders passed by the executive have to be tested 
A 
on the touchstone of reasonableness. (Paras 10 & 11) [899-F-G) 
Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651; Teri Oat Estates 
(P) Ltd. v. U. T Chandigarh and Ors., (2004) 2 SCC 130; 
Kendriya 
Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors. v. T Srinivas, [2004) 7 SCC 442; Hindustan 
Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Others v. Sarvesh Berry, {2005) 10 SCC 
B 
471 and Uttranchal Road Transport Co1pn. v. Mansaram Nainwal, {2006) 
6 sec 366, relied on. 
2. The purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution is two 
different and distinct aspects. The criminal prosecution is launched for an 
C 
offence for violation of a duty the offender owes to the society, or for breach 
of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the 
public. So crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission 
of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the 
service and efficiency of public service. It would, therefore, be expedient 
that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as 
D 
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 
E 
departmental enquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the charge in the 
criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and 
law. Offence generally implies infringement of public duty, as distinguished 
from mere private rights punishable under criminal law. When trial for 
criminal offence is conducted it should be in accordance with proof of the 
offence as per the evidence defined under the provisions of the Indian 
F 
Evidence Act, 1872. Converse is the case of departmental enquiry. The 
enquiry in a departmental proceeding relates to conduct or breach of duty 
of the 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 position. 
G 
Under these circumstances, what is required to be seen is whether t

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