Simultaneous disciplinary and criminal proceedings against staff is valid: CAT
Hyderabad: The Hyderabad bench of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) vindicated the decision of the customs and central excise department in carrying out disciplinary proceedings against its alleged corrupt staff, simultaneously along with the criminal proceedings being conducted by the CBI.
The bench, comprising Dr Lata Baswaraj Patne (judicial member) and Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi (administrative member), noted that there was no bar in law for initiation of simultaneous criminal and departmental proceedings on the same set of allegations.
The bench also viewed that the departmental inquiry was in regard to misconduct of the employees, lack of devotion to duty, lack of integrity and their conduct that is unbecoming of a public servant.
They were dealing with applications filed separately by S. Gopala Krishna Murthy, D. Tata Rao and K. Narayana Prasad, all employees of the customs and central excise department, allegedly involved in corrupt practices in various cases.
The CBI has registered different cases against them, which are pending. Meanwhile, the wing initiated departmental proceedings. Challenging the same, the three approached the tribunal, which, in its interim orders, stayed the disciplinary proceedings.
After the final hearing, the CAT bench upheld continuation of the disciplinary proceedings simultaneously with the criminal proceedings. It cited the cases which upheld continuation of disciplinary proceedings.
The bench also considered the memos issued by the department of personal training in 2007, 2016 and 2018, through which it issued instructions that merely because a criminal trial is pending, departmental inquiry involving the very same charges as involved in the criminal proceedings is not barred and the approach and objective in the criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings are distinctly different.
It also said that the charges framed in the departmental proceedings are sought to be established on the basis of evidence, which would prove preponderance of probability of the misconduct, but it is not necessarily based on the recovery of the bribe money, whereas, the charge sheet filed by the investigation team in the criminal court is entirely different. It is governed by a different procedure of law and the same has to be proved on evidence, in strict conformity to the law of evidence.
