STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus SH. B.K. MEENA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 68 · Decided: 27-09-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
v. 
SH. B.K. MEENA AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 27, 1996 
B 
(B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Disciplinary Proceedings--Stay of disciplinary proceedings by Court 
C Tribunal-Not to be a matter of course but a considered decision-Both 
criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings can go simultaneously-No 
legal bar. 
Approach and objective in criminal proceedings and the disciplinary 
proceedings is altogether distinct and diff erent-1he standard of proof, mode 
D of Enquiry and the ntles goveming the Enquiry and Trial in disciplinary 
proceedings and Criminal proceedings are entirely distinct and dif-
f erent-Prevention of Corruption Ac~ 1988---Criminal Proceedings. 
Respondent, as IAS Officer of Rajasthan Cadre, working as Addi-
tional Collector, Development-4:um-Project Director, Distt. Rural Develop-
E ment Agency (DRDA) Jaipur was transferred. Complaint against 
respondent was filed by his successor alleging misappropriation of public 
funds to the tune of Rs. 1.05 C1·ores. After investigations, Anti Corruption 
Department of State of Rajasthan registered an FIR. The respondent was 
arrested and be remained in custody. 
F 
G 
Government of India refused sanction to prosecute respondent 
under the Prevention of Con:11ption Act, 1988 and advised the State 
Government to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the respondent. 
Memo of charges accompaniE~d by articles 
of charges was issued to 
respondent. 
Respondent submitted detailed written statement rebutting charges 
framed against him reserving his right to add new point. 
Respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, chal-
lenging the various orders passed against him including the memo of 
H charges. 
68 
-
STATE v. B.K MEENA 
69 
The Central Administrative Tribunal stayed the disciplinary A 
proceedings against the respondent. Petitioner State reinstated the 
respondent in service, revoking the order of suspension pending enquiry. 
Charge sheet was filed in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, 
who took cognizance thereof. 
Thereafter respondent amended his 0.A. requesting that discipli-
nary enquiry against him be stayed pending the criminal trial. Appellant 
State contended that since respondent has disclosed all possible defence 
in the said written statement there is no occasion or warrant for staying 
B 
the disciplinary proceedings. 
· 
C 
The Tribunal held that charge sheet in the Criminal case and the 
memo of charges in the discipli11ary proceedings were based upon same 
facts and allegations. Allowing respondent's plea and staying the discipli-
nary proceedings pending Criminal Trial, the Tribunal observed that the D 
respondent may have to put forward further defence as and when material 
against him emerges during the enquiry proceedings and disclosure of the 
defence at that stage could prejudice his defence in the Criminal Trial. 
State preferred the present Appeal against the order of Central 
Administrative Tribunal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
E 
HELD: 1. There is no legal bar for both proceedings- disciplinary and 
criminal-to go on simultaneously and in certain situations it may not be· 
"desirable", "advisable" or "appropriate" to proceed with the disciplinary F 
enquiry when a criminal case is pending on identical charges. The staying 
of disciplinary proceedings is a matter to be determined having regard to 
the facts and circumstances of a given case and no hard and fast rules can 
be enunciated in that behalf. The only ground for staying the disciplinary 
proceeding is "that the defence of the employee in the criminal case may G 
not be prejudiced". It means that not only the charges must be grave but th_at 
>-~~ 
the case must involve complicated questions of Law and facts. [75-D-E; F] 
I 
SA. Venkataraman v. Union of India &Anr., AIR (1954) SC375,'1Je/hi 
Cotton and General Mills Ltd. v. Kushal Bhan, (1960) 3 SCR 227 and Tafa 
Oil Mills Company Ltd. v. Workmen, (1964) 7 SCR 555, relied on. 
H 
A 
B 
70 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 
2. Disciplinary enquiry canlllot be and should not be delayed unduly. 
Where High Officers or persons holding high public offices are involved, 
criminal cases drag on endlessly. This is the reality inspite of repeated 
advice and admonitions from this Court and the High Courts. The inter· 
ests of administration and good government demand that these proceed· 
ings are concluded expeditiously. The disciplinary proce
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.