Holding

Departmental proceedings pending a criminal case do not automatically merit a stay; the court must examine commonality of charges, presence of a complicated legal question, and conduct of parties, and in this case the stay was unjustified.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined an appeal by Indian Overseas Bank against a Madras High Court order that stayed disciplinary proceedings against four bank employees who were also facing criminal charges for assaulting a rival union president. The employees had been suspended, served charge‑sheets, and a departmental enquiry had progressed through multiple hearings. The High Court had stayed the enquiry on the ground that the criminal and disciplinary matters were based on identical facts and involved a grave charge. The Supreme Court held that pendency of a criminal case does not automatically merit a stay of departmental proceedings; the court must assess whether the charges and evidence are common, whether a complicated question of law arises, and consider the conduct of the parties and the extent to which the enquiry has proceeded. Finding that the charges differed, that no complicated legal question was involved, and that the enquiry had already advanced considerably, the Court set aside the stay and allowed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the mere pendency of a criminal case automatically warrants a stay of disciplinary (departmental) proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Whether the charges and evidence in the criminal and disciplinary proceedings are identical and whether a complicated question of law is involved, requiring a stay.
Whether the conduct of the parties and the extent of the departmental enquiry affect the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction to stay the proceedings.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 482
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 307, s. 323, s. 324, s. 341, s. 427, s. 506

Subjects

Article 226disciplinary proceedingscriminal proceedingsstay of proceedingsdepartmental enquiryservice lawburden of proofconduct of partiesdiscretionary jurisdictionIndian Penal Code

Judgment

A INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, ANNA SALA! AND ANR.
v.
P. GANESAN AND ORS.

NOVEMBER 23, 2007
B )-
(S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.]

Constitution ofIndia, 1950-Art. 226--Writ petition seeking stay
ofdisciplinary proceedings, pending criminal proceedings-Allowed
c by High Court-Held: Departmental proceedings pending a criminal
proceeding do not warrant automatic stay-Superior Courts before
exercising discretionary jurisdiction in this regard must consider
whether charges as also evidence in both proceedings are common and ,_
as to whether any complicated question of law is involved in the
D matter-Also discretionary jurisdiction should be exercised keeping ;.

in view conduct <ifparties-On facts, there were additional charges
against delinquent employees besides charges of damaging bank
property which was not subject matter of allegations in the criminal
case-Furthermore, disciplinary proceedings had proceeded to a great
E extent-In such a situation, discretionary jurisdiction should not have
been exercised in favour of delinquent employees by High Court-
Service Law-Stay of disciplinary proceedings pending criminal
proceedings.

F Respondent nos.1 to 4, office bearers of an employee association
operating in the appellant-bank, allegedly assaulted respondent no.5,
President of anotlter rival association, and also caused damage to bank
property. Criminal proceedings were initiated against respondent nos.
1 to 4. Besides, appellant-bank initiated disciplinary proceedings against
G respondent nos. I to 4. They filed a writ petition before the High Court, ·)....__ ... ..,
which deferred the departmental proceedings against respondent Nos.
1 to 4 till conclusion of their criminal trial.
In the instant appeal filed by the bank, it was contended for the
H 474
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, ANNA SALA! v. 475
~"

P.GANESAN
appellant that the High Court committed a serious error in staying the A
departmental enquiry proceedings as the same had proceeded to a great
extent.

Allowing the appeal, the Court
• _, HELD: 1.1. Departmental proceedings pending criminal B
proceedings do not warrant an automatic stay. The Superior Courts
before exercising its discretionary jurisdiction in this regard must take
into consideration the fact as to whether the charges as also the evidence
in both the proceedings are common and as to whether any complicated
question oflaw is involved in the matter. [Para 15] [483-C] c
1.2. In the instant case, the High Court was not correct in its view
in concluding that the stay of the departmental proceedings should be
granted in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. It misdirected
J..
itself in law. What was necessary to be noticed by the High Court was D
not only existence ofidentical facts and the evidence in the matter, it
was also required to take into consideration the question as to whether
the charges levelled against the delinquent officers, both in the criminal
case as also the disciplinary proceedings, were same. Furthermore, it
was obligatory on the part of the High Court to arrive at a finding that E
non stay of disciplinary proceedings shall not only prejudice the·
delinquent officers but the matter also involves a complicated question
oflaw. Before the High Court no contention was raised that because
respondentnos.1to4 are office bearers ofa trade union, the authorities
+ were biased against them. Nothing has been shown that any complicated F
question oflaw arose for determination in the criminal case.
[Paras 20 and 22] [485-E, F, G; 486-C]
1.3. The standard of proof in a disciplinary proceeding and that in
a criminal trial is different If there are additional charges against the
L-.. •. _,c
G
delinquent officers, besides the charges of damaging the property
belonging to the bank, which was not the subject matter ofallegations
in a criminal case, the departmental proceedings should not have been
stayed. Furthermore, respondent nos.1 to 4 have since moved the High
Court for quashing of the order taking cognizance of offence against
H
476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A them in the criminal proceedings and the criminal proceedings have
been stayed. [Paras 21and22) [486-A, BJ

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Ors. v. Sarvesh Berry,
(2005) 10 SCC 471; G.M Tank v. State of Gujarat and Ors., (2006) 5
B SCC 446 and Sathi V!fay Kumar v. Tota Singh and Ors., (2006) 14 Scale
199,distinguished. ~ '

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors. v. T Srinivas, [2004) 7 SCC
442; Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Kushal Bhan, AIR (1960) SC
806; Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. The Workmen, AIR (1965) SC 155; State
C of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena and Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 417 and Capt. M
Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Anr. (1999) 3 SCC 679,
relied on.

2. Also the discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
D Constitution oflndia should be exercised keeping in view the conduct
of the parties. The respondents made a representation that in the event
the order of suspension is revoked, they would cooperate with the
Enquiry Officer. They kept on filing applications for extension of time
which were allowed. They took benefit thereof. Without, however filing
E show cause, they moved the High Court. Furthermore, before the
Enquiry Officer also they, although had appointed the defence counsel,
did not cross-examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the
Management A large number ofwitnesses had already been examined
on behalf of the appellants. The disciplinary proceedings have
F proceeded to a great extent. In such a situation the discretionary +
jurisdiction should not have been exercised in favour of respondents 1
to 4 by the High Court. (Para 26) (487-B, C, D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5369 of
2007.
G
From the final Judgment and Order dated 1.2.2006 of the High Court >---"
of Judicature at Madras in W.A. Nos. 11, 12, 13 and 73/2006.
Altaf Ahmed, Vishal Chauhan and Ambrish Kumar for the
Appellants.
H
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, ANNA SALAI v. 477
P. GANESAN [SINHA, J.]
V. Prakash, Amit Sharma, Anupam Lal Das, S. Nanda Kumar, A
Satish Kumar, Anandsclvam, K. Indira and V.N. Raghupathy for the
Respondents.

.
. '
~
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Whether pendency of a criminal case by itself would be a sufficient
B

ground for stay of the departmental proceedings is the principal question
which arises for our consideration in this case.
3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. c
4. Respondents 1 to 4 herein are the office bearers of the All India
Indian Overseas Bank SC/ST Employees' Welfare Association.
Indisputably another association was also operating in the establishment
of the appellant known as All India Indian Overseas Bank Employees' D
Union of which respondent No.5 is the President. Registration of similar
names gave rise to a dispute between the parties.
5. Indisputably a first information report was lodged on 27th January,
2005 with the "Thousand Light5 Police Station, Chennai" alleging that L.
Balasubramanian, Respondent No.5, herein was assaulted on 27th E
January, 2005 at about 12.35 p.m. within the bank premises by
Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 as well as by Mr. P. Rajalingam, the Deputy
Chief Officer working in the Regional Office of the appellant-bank. All
the respondents are indisputably employees of the bank. Their designations
+ are as under:- F

(a) Respondent No. I (P. Ganesan) is employed as Assistant
Manager, Thiruvottiyur Market Branch. He is also the General
Secretary of All India Indian Overseas Bank SC/ST Employees'
Welfare Association. G
(b) Respondent No.2 (S. Vijayakurnar) is employed as a clerk in
the Central Clearing Office at Chennai. He is also the Vice
President of the All India Indian Overseas Bank SC/ST
Employees' Welfare Association.
H
478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R. ' ...
-"-
A (c) Respondent No.3 (R Amalraj) is employed as a Messenger in
the Inspection Department, Central Office at Chennai. He is also
the Organizing Secretary of the All India Indian Overseas Bank
SC/ST Employees' Welfare Association.

B
(d) Respondent No. 4 (A. Dakshinamoorthy) is employed as an
Assistant Manager in the Walltax Road Branch, Chennai. He is 1 •
also the Deputy General Secretary of the All India Indian Overseas >-
Bank SC/ST Employees' Welfare Association.
(e) Respondent No.5 (L. Balasubramanian) is employed as "Special
c Assistant" in Foreign Exchange Department, Central Office at
Chennai. He is also the President of All India Indian Overseas Bank
Employees' Union (AIOBEU) as well as the President of the
National Confederation of Bank Employees (NCBE)".

D 6. An enquiry was conducted leading to discovery of certain
additional facts. It may not be necessary for us to take note of the same
,.
at this stage. Respondent No.5 was admitted in the National Hospital for
medical treatment. He remained confined therein for a period of twelve
days. A charge-sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer in the criminal
E case against Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 under Sections 341, 323, 324,
427, 307 and 506 (ii) of the Indian Penal Code. Respondent Nos. 1 and
3 were arrested. 'Ibey were, however, released on bail on 15th February,
2005. Respondents Nos. 2 and 4, however, absconded. On or about
15th February, 2005 they obtained anticipatory bail. Another first
F information was lodged by Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 against respondent
No.5 in the said Thousand Lights Police Station, Chennai. -+

7. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were placed under suspension by the
appellant-bank by an order dated 28th January, 2005. Charge-sheets
dated 21st February, 2005 were also served upon them. They were asked
G to show cause as to why disciplinary action be not taken against them
for their acts of indiscipline, insubordination, unruly and disorderly .,.._,....
behaviour, use of filthy language and most shameful abuses as well as
murderous assault on respondent No.5 within the office premises of the
bank as also causing damage to valuable properties and serious
H
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, ANNA SALAI v. 479
P. GANESAN [SINHA, J.]
impainnent to the bank's prestige and reputation in the estimation of public A
at large. Requests were made by the said respondents to revoke the order
of suspension by an application dated 9th March, 2005 assuring the
authority that they would fully cooperate with the authorities of the bank
in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against them. They, furthermore,
requested the bank to grant them one month's time to submit their reply B
to the show cause. Orders of suspension were revoked on 16th April,
2005. No reply to the show cause notice, however, was filed by them
despite opportunities granted. Departmental enquiry was held against them
on 18th May, 2005; 3rd June, 2005, 17th June, 2005, 28th June, 2005,
8th July, 2005, 19th July, 2005, 29th July, 2005 and 4th August, 2005, C
the details whereof, as stated by the appellants in their affidavit before
the High Court, are as under :-
"(a) .....The Enquiry was fixed for 18.5.2005 in respect of which
the Respondents had been duly intimated fairly in advance. D
However, the said Enquiry was adjourned to 3.6.2005 acceding
to the written request dated 16.5.2005 of the respondents.
(b) The Enquiry was further adjourned to 17 .6.2005 in response
to the Respondents' request for adjournment.
E
(c) The Enquiry was then fixed for 8.7.2005 in view of the
Respondents' written request dated 25.6.2005. However, the
Respondents remained absent on 8.7.2005, and therefore they
were set ex-parte, while adjourning the Enquiry to 19.7.2005.
(d) Meanwhile, the list of Management Witnesses was mailed to F
the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 who admitted to have received the
same.
(e) On 19.7.2005, only Respondent Nos.2 and 4 attended the
Enquiry Proceedings, and categorically admitted to have received G
the List of Management Witnesses, whereas Respondents Nos. I
and 3 remained absent.
(f) The Enquiry was then adjourned to 29.7.2005 a.TJd again
adjourned to 4.8.2005 when except Respondent No.3 (R.
H
480 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A Amalraj), the other Respondent Nos. I, 2 and 4 attended the
proceedings, and requested for further postponement, while
representing that on the next date of the proceedings, they would
either bring their "Defence Representative" or they would
themselves conduct their "defence" without seeking any further
B postponement thereof. Accordingly, the Enquiry was finally
adjourned to 19.8.2005 to be held "on day-to-day basis until
conclusion"."

8. While on the one hand the respondents were seeking adjournments
C and taking time from the Enquiry Officer in the said disciplinary
proceedings, they, on the other hand, moved the High Court of Madras
by filing writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution oflndia. The
said writ petitions were marked as W.P. Nos. 26176, 26177, 26178 and
26179 of2005. Interlocutory applications were also filed therein praying
D for stay of proceedings in the departmental enquiry pursuant to the said
charge-sheet dated 21st February, 2005 on the premise that on identical
facts criminal cases had been filed against them. An ad interim order of
stay was granted by the High Court by an order of 16th August, 2005
stating:-
E "Though this Court generally did not entertain Writ Petitions relating
to Charge-memos on the ground that Criminal proceedings are
pending, the question as to whether the Departmental Proceedings
and the Criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts
and whether the Charge in the Criminal case is of the grave nature
F which involves complicated questions of!aw and facts are the
factors to be examined in the Writ Petitions".
The said interim order of stay was produced before the Enquiry
Officer. As the interim order of stay was granted only for a period of four
G weeks and the same having not been extended the enquiry proceedings
continued. One witness being MW! was examined on 21st October,
2005. The said departmental enquiry also proceeded on 22nd October,
2005 but the respondents did not participate therein on which date MW2
was examined. Yet again on 24th October, 2005, MW3 and MW4 were
H examined and the matter was adjourned to 25th October, 2005 when
~
;

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, ANNA SALAI v. 481

- _,.,--
P. GANESAN [SINHA, J.]
MW5 and MW6 were examined. On 26th October, 2005, MW7 and A
MW8 were examined-in-chief and the enquiry was adjourned to 27th
October, 2005. Yet again on 28th October, 2005, MW9 and MWlO
were examined and the enquiry was adjourned to 29th October, 2005
on which date MWl 1 was examined. It is stated that the respondents

... _,
attended the enquiry on 29th October, 2005 and nominated their Defence B
Representative to defend them. A prayer for adjournment made on their
behalf, however, was declined by the Enquiry Officer. MWl 1 was
examined-in-chief on that date. The enquiry was adjourned to 31st
October, 2005 on which date MW12 and MW13 were examined-in-
chief. It was adjourned to 9th December, 2005 for cross-examination of c
the Management Witnesses.
9. The applica,ion for vacating the stay filed by the appellants on
6th September, 2005 was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High
Court by an order dated 7th December, 2005 stating:-
D
-" "Once the Learned Single Judge has indicated the reasons which
weighed with him in exercising the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the impugned
Charge-Memo, except to expedite the writ them petitions, it may
not be proper for this Court to vacate the Interim Stay at this stage. E
Accordingly, the vacate stay petitions, viz. WPMPs Nos. 2047 to
2050 of 2005 are dismissed. The Interim stay granted by this
Court on 16.8.2005 is made absolute.
Expedite the Writ Petitions and post the same for final hearing
F
in the second week of February, 2006."
10. Writ appeals preferred by the appellants against that order were
disposed of by a Division Bench of the Court by reason of the impugned
judgment opining :-
G
"14. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the criminal action
~~~
and the disciplinary proceedings are founded upon the same set
of facts. In fact, the disciplinary proceedings are solely based upon
the criminal complaint lodged by the president of a rival union, who
is also facing prosecution with regard to the same incident. It has H
482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A been conceded before us that the bank had not conducted any
independent enquiry before initiating the impugned departmental
proceedings.
15. In our opinion, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case on hand, fair play requires that postponing of the departmental
B
proceedings till the criminal cases are decided. We are, therefore,
of the view that the prayer made by the petitioners for deferring
the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal trial
has to be accepted and it is ordered accordingly."
C 11. The appellants are thus before us.
12. Mr. Altaf Ahmed, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellants in support of the appeal would, inter alia, submit that
the High Court committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment
D in so far as it failed to take into consideration that as the enquiry
proceedings proceeded to a great extent the same should not have been
stayed. Reliance in this behalf has been placed on Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan and Ors. v. T Srinivas, [2004] 7 SCC 442.
13. Mr. G. Prakash, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
E respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the High Court having
exercised its discretionary jurisdiction upon application oflaw operating
in this behalf, this Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article
136 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel urged that in a matter
of this nature where rival parties had clashed with each other and case
F and counter case have been instituted - one investigated by the Assistant
Commissioner of Police and another by an Inspector of Police, the
respondents would be highly prejudiced if the departmental proceedings
are allowed to continue; particularly when the officers of the appellant-
bank have been proceeding with a bias. It was contended that the question
G as to whether there exists any complicated question of law must be judged
from the employees' point of view, they being belonging to the weaker
section. Learned counsel would, in support of his contention, strongly
relied upon G.M Tank v. State of Gujarat and Ors., [2006] 5 SCC
446; Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd and Ors. v. Sarvesh
H
''f

.. _.,--
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, ANNA SALAI v.
P. GANESAN [SINHA, J.]
Berry, [2005] 10 SCC 471 and Sathi Vijay Kumar v. Tota Singh and A
483

Ors., (2006) 14 Scale 199.
14. Before embarking upon the rival contentions of the parties we
may notice that Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have filed an application for

-
quashing the order taking cognizance against them before the High Court
B
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was marked
-1'
as Cr!. O.P. No. 18163 of2006 and by an order dated 17th July, 2006
further proceedings in the criminal case have been stayed.
15. Legal position operating in the field is no longer res integra. A
departmental proceedings pending a criminal proceedings does not c
warrant an automatic stay. The superior courts before exercising its
discretionary jurisdiction in this regard must take into consideration the
fact as to whether the charges as also the evidence in both the proceedings
are common and as to whether any complicated question oflaw is involved
in the matter. D
-4
16. In Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Kushal Bhan: AIR
(1960) SC 806 this Court while holding that the employer should not wait
for the decision of the criminal court before taking any disciplinary action
against the employee and such an action on the part of the employer does E
not violate the principle of natural justice, observed :-
"We may, however, add that ifthe case is of a grave nature or
involves questions of fact or law, which are not simple, it would
be advisable for the employer to wait the decision of the trial court,
so that the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not F
be prejudiced".
The same principle was reiterated in Tata Oil Mills Co_ Ltd. v. The
Workmen: AIR (1965) SC 155.
17. In State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena and Ors., [1996] 6 SCC G
,__,, 417 this Court held :-
"The staying of disciplinary proceedings, it is emphasised, is a
matter to be determined having regard to the facts and
circumstances of a given case and that no hard and fast rules can H
~
484 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.
-.... ...
A be enunciated in that behalf The only ground suggested in the above
decisions as constituting a valid ground for staying the disciplinary
proceedings is "that the defence of the employee in the criminal
case may not be prejudiced." This ground has, however, been
hedged in by providing further that this may be done in cases of
B grave nature involving questions of fact and law. In our respectful
opinion, it means t1¥tt not only the charges must be grave but that
the case must involve complicated questions of law and fact.
\_ -
Moreover, 'advisability', 'desirability' or 'propriety', as the case may
be, has to be determined in each case taking into consideration all
c the facts and circumstances of the case."
18. Capt. M Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Anr.,
[1999] 3 SCC 679 also deserves to be noticed. This Court therein held
that the departmental proceedings need not be stayed during pendency
of the criminal case save and except for cogent reasons. The Court
D
summarized its findings as under :-
~

"(i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case
can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being
conducted simultaneously, though separately.
E
(ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based
on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal
case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which
involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be
F
desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion
of the criminal case.
(iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and
whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that
case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case
G launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material
collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the ...___..
charge sheet.
(iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be
H considered in isolation to stay the Departmental proceedings but
~
,

~
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, ANNA SALAI v. 485
,,....-
P. GANESAN [SINHA, J.]
due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental A
proceedings cannot be unduly delayed.
(v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being
unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were
stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be
_.., B
resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early
date, so that ifthe employee is found not guilty his honour may be
vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the administration may
get rid of him at the earliest."

19. The issue came up for consideration yet again in T Srinivas c
(supra) where this Court while analyzing B.K. Meena (supra) and Capt.
M Paul Anthony (supra) held that :-
"From the above, it is clear that the advisability, desirability or
propriety, as the case may be, in regard to a departmental enquiry D
has to be determined in each case taking into consideration all facts
and circumstances of the case. This judgment also Jays down that
the stay of departmental proceedings cannot be and should not be
a matter of course."
20. The High Court, unfortunately, although noticed some of the E
binding precedents of the Court failed to apply the Jaw in its proper
perspective. The High Court was not correct in its view in concluding that
the stay of the departmental proceedings should be granted in the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case without analyzing and applying the
principle of law evolved in the aforementioned decisions. It, therefore, F
misdirected itself in law. What was necessary to be noticed by the High
Court was not only existence of identical facts and the evidence in the
matter, it was also required to take into consideration the question as to
whether the charges levelled against th~ delinquent officers, both in the
~\....-~ criminal case as also the disciplinary proceedings, were same. Furthermore G
it was obligatory on the part of the High Court to arrive at a finding that
the non stayed of the disciplinary proceedings shall not only prejudice the
delinquent officers but the matter also the matter involves a complicated
question oflaw.
H
486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R. .-
--...

A 21. The standard of proof in a disciplinary proceedings and that in
a criminal trial is different. If there are additional charges against the
delinquent officers including the charges of damaging the property
belonging to the bank which was not the subject matter of allegations in
a criminal case, the departmental proceedings should not have been stayed.
B ~
22. Furthermore Respondent Nos. l to 4 have now moved the High
Court for quashing of the order taking cognizance of offence against them
in the criminal proceedings. The criminal proceedings have been stayed.
Thus, even applying the principle laid down in Capt. M Paul Anthony
(supra) the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. Before the High
c Court no contention was raised that because Respondent Nos. 1 to 4
are office bearers of a trade union, the authorities were biased against
them Nothing has been shown that any complicated question oflaw arose
for determination in the criminal case.
D 23. Reliance placed by Mr. Prakash on Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Ltd. (supra) is not apposite. There were certain special
features which were noticed by this Court. In that case itself it was held:-
"There can be no straitjacket formula as to in which case the
departmental proceedings are to be stayed. There may be cases
E
where the trial of the case get prolonged by the dilatory
method adopted by the delinquent official. He cannot be
permitted to, on one hand, prolong the criminal case and at the
same time contend that the departmental proceedings should be
stayed on the ground that the criminal case is pending."
F
(emphasis supplied)
Therein the departmental proceeding were allowed to continue
despite the fact that the delinquent officer therein had been charged for
G commission of an offence under Section 13(1Xe) read with Section 13(2) "- ,...
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
24. In G.M Tank (supra) this Court was dealing with a case where
the delinquent officer was acquitted. The said decision has no application
in the instant case.
H
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, ANNA SALAI v. 487
~

P. GANESAN [SINHA, J.]
25. Sathi Vijay Kumar (supra) pertains to a case involving election A
dispute. The question which arose therein was as to whether despite the
fact that there was no provision in the Representation of the People Act,
1961 for striking out the pleadings, the Tribunal had the power to do so.
We are not concerned with such a question in this matter.
. _,
'
_
B
26. Furthennore the discretionary \\'Tit jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India should be exercised keeping in view the
conduct of the parties. Respondents made a representation that in the
event the order of suspension is revoked, they would cooperate with the
Enquiry Officer. They kept on filing applications for extension of time which
were allowed. They took benefit thereof. Without, however filing show
c
cause, they moved the High Court. Furthennore before the Enquiry Officer
also, as noticed hereinbefore, although they had appointed the defence
counsel, did not cross-examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the
Management. A large number of witnesses had already been examined
D
on behalf of the appellants. The disciplinary proceedings, as we have
noticed hereinbefore, have proceeded to a great extent. In such a situation
we are of the finn view that the discretionary jurisdiction should not have
been exercised in favour of Respondents 1 to 4 by the High Court.
27. For the reasons abovementioned the impugned judgment cannot E
be sustained which is hereby set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
28. We would, however, like to observe that in the event any prayer
is made by the respondents to cross-exanune the witnesses examined on
1 behalf of the appellants, the Enquiry Officer may consider the same in F
accordance with law. Keeping in view the conduct of the respondents
they are directed to bear the costs of the appellants both before the High
Court as also before us. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs.25,000/-.
~
B.B.B. Appeal allowed.
~ )'-·-,____,.

•