Page 1

        REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.                    OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.30371-30376 of 2012)

M/s Stanzen Toyotetsu India P. Ltd.              …

Appellant

Versus

Girish V & Ors. …Respondents

J U D G M E N T

T.S. THAKUR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The short question that falls for determination in these  

appeals is 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  herein)  ought  to  remain  stayed  pending  

1

Page 2

conclusion  of  the  criminal  case  instituted  against  the  

respondents in respect of the very same incident.

3. The appellant-company is engaged in the manufacture  

of automobile parts in the name and style of M/s Stanzen  

Toyotetsu  India  Pvt.  Ltd.  while  the  respondents  are  

workmen engaged by the appellant in connection with the  

said business.  It is not in dispute that the employees of the  

appellant-company including the respondents are governed  

by  Standing  Orders  certified  under  Industrial  Employees  

(Standing Orders) Act, 1946.  

4. The  appellant’s  case  is  that  on  19th March,  2011  at  

about 10.30 p.m. the respondents with the help of  other  

Trade  Union  functionaries  stage  managed  an  accident  

making  it  appear  as  if  an  employee  by  the  name of  Mr.  

Kusumadhara had slipped and fallen in the press area. The  

incident was, it is alleged, used as a ruse by the respondents  

who  rushed  to  the  place  of  alleged  fall  only  to  create  a  

ruckus.  Appellant’s  further  case  is  that  although  Mr.  

Kusumadhara had not sustained any injury, he was sent to  

the hospital in the ambulance of the appellant-company and  

2

Page 3

that instead of resuming the work after the alleged incident,  

the respondents stopped the production activity and started  

abusing their superiors, damaged property of the company  

and even assaulted senior managerial personnel. These acts  

of indiscipline created an atmosphere of fear and tension in  

the factory and brought the production activity to a grinding  

halt.  Senior  managerial  personnel  injured  in  the  incident  

were, according to the appellant, unable to report for work  

for about 15 days on account of assault on them.

5. Taking note of the incident and the acts of indiscipline  

which amounted to misconduct under several provisions of  

the  Standing  Order,  the  competent  authority  placed  the  

respondents under suspension and issued charge-sheets to  

them. The explanation submitted by the respondents having  

been  found  unsatisfactory,  a  disciplinary  enquiry  was  

initiated and Enquiry Officers appointed to enquire into the  

allegations against the respondents.  The Presenting Officers  

have examined one witness in each one of the enquiries.  

6. The incident in question was it appears reported even  

to  the  police  by  one  of  the  employees  of  the  appellant-

3

Page 4

company who was a witness to the same, leading to the  

registration  of  Crime  No.173/2011  in  Ramanagara  Rural  

Police Station for offences punishable under Sections  143,  

147, 323, 324, 356, 427, 504, 506, 114 read with Section  

149 I.P.C.  A  charge-sheet  was  filed  pursuant  to  the  said  

report and investigation is pending in which the respondents  

are accused of committing the offences mentioned above.  

7. While  the  disciplinary  enquiry  and  the  criminal  case  

were  both  pending,  the  respondents  filed  Original  Suits  

No.326-331 of 2011 in which they prayed for a permanent  

injunction  against  the  appellant  and  the  Enquiry  Officers  

restraining them from proceeding with the enquiry pending  

conclusion  of  the  criminal  case.  Interlocutory  Applications  

seeking  temporary  injunctions  in  each  one  of  the  suits  

against the on-going enquiry were also filed in the said suits.  

The applications though opposed by the appellant-company  

were  allowed  by  the  Principal  Civil  Judge  and  JMFC  

Ramanagara by an order dated 13th October, 2011 staying  

the domestic  enquiry pending against  the respondents  till  

the disposal of criminal case in C.C. No.1005 of 2011.   

4

Page 5

8. Misc.  Appeals  No.56/2011  and  61/2011  filed  by  the  

appellant against the said order before the Principal Senior  

Civil Judge and CJM Ramanagara having failed, the appellant  

filed  Writ  Petitions  No.8487-8491  of  2012  (GM-CPC)  and  

W.P. No.9381 of 2012 (GM-CPC) before the High Court of  

Karnataka  which  petitions  too  failed  and  have  been  

dismissed by the High Court in terms of a common order  

dated 15th June, 2012 impugned in the present appeals.  In  

the  result  the  disciplinary  enquiry  pending  against  the  

respondents  remained  stayed  pending  conclusion  of  the  

criminal  trial.  The  present  appeals,  as  noticed  earlier,  

assailed the correctness of the said judgment and orders.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some  

length.  The only question that falls for determination in the  

above backdrop is whether the Courts below were justified  

in  staying  the  on-going  disciplinary  proceedings  pending  

conclusion of  the trial  in  the criminal  case registered and  

filed against the respondents. The answer to that question  

would primarily depend upon whether there is any legal bar  

to  the continuance of  the disciplinary  proceedings  against  

5

Page 6

the employees based on an incident which is also the subject  

matter of criminal case against such employees.  It would  

also depend upon the nature of the charges in the criminal  

case  filed  against  the  employees  and  whether  the  case  

involves  complicated  questions  of  law  and  fact.  The  

possibility  of  prejudice  to  the  employees  accused  in  the  

criminal case on account of the parallel disciplinary enquiry  

going  ahead  is  another  dimension  which  will  have  to  be  

addressed  while  permitting  or  staying  such  disciplinary  

enquiry proceedings. The law on the subject is fairly well-  

settled  for  similar  issues  and  has  often  engaged  the  

attention of this Court in varied fact situations.  Although the  

pronouncements  of  this  Court  have  stopped  short  of  

prescribing  any  strait-jacket  formula  for  application  to  all  

cases the decisions of this Court have identified the broad  

approach to be adopted in such matters leaving it for the  

Courts concerned to take an appropriate view in the peculiar  

facts and circumstances of each case that comes up before  

them.  Suffice it to say that there is no short cut solution to  

the problem.  What is, however, fairly well settled and was  

not disputed even before us is that there is no legal bar to  

6

Page 7

the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings and a criminal  

trial simultaneously. In Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh  

State  Road  Transport  Corporation  vs.  Mohd.  Yousuf   

Miyan (1997)  2  SCC  699,  this  Court  declared  that  the  

purpose  underlying  departmental  proceedings  is  distinctly  

different from the purpose behind prosecution of offenders  

for  commission  of  offences  by  them.   While  criminal  

prosecution for an offence is launched for violation of a duty  

that the offender owes to the society, departmental enquiry  

is aimed at maintaining discipline and efficiency in service.  

The difference in the standard of proof and the application of  

the rules of evidence to one and inapplicability to the other  

was  also  explained  and  highlighted  only  to  explain  that  

conceptually  the two operate in different  spheres and are  

intended to serve distinctly different purposes. The relatively  

recent  decision  of  this  Court  in  Divisional  Controller,   

Karnataka  State  Road  Transport  Corporation v. M.G.  

Vittal Rao (2012) 1 SCC 442, is a timely reminder of the  

principles  that  are  applicable  in  such  situations  succinctly  

summed up in the following words:

7

Page 8

“(i) There is no legal bar for both proceedings to go  on simultaneously.

(ii)  The  only  valid  ground  for  claiming  that  the   disciplinary proceedings may be stayed would be to   ensure  that  the  defence  of  the  employee  in  the   criminal case may not be prejudiced. But even such  grounds would be available only in cases involving   complex questions of facts and law.

(iii) Such  defence  ought  not  to  be  permitted  to   unnecessarily  delay  the departmental  proceedings.  The interest of the delinquent officer as well as the   employer clearly lies in a prompt conclusion of the   disciplinary proceedings.

(iv)  Departmental  Proceedings can  go  on  simultaneously  to  the  criminal  trial,  except  where   both the proceedings are based on the same set of   facts  and the evidence in  both  the  proceedings  is   common.”

10. We may also refer to the decision of this Court in Capt.  

M Paul Anthony v.  Bharat Gold Mines Ltd,  (1999) 3   

SCC 679 where this  Court reviewed the case law on the  

subject  to  identify  the  following  broad  principles  for  

application in the facts and circumstances of a given case:

“(i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in   a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there   is  no bar in their  being conducted simultaneously,   though separately.

(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   

8

Page 9

involves  complicated  questions  of  law and  fact,  it   would  be  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   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  considered  in  isolation  to  stay  the   Departmental proceedings but due regard has to be  given to the fact that the departmental 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 resumed   and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an  early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty   his honor may be vindicated and in case he is found   guilty,  administration  may  get  rid  of  him  at  the   earliest.”

11. In HPCL v. Sarvesh Berry (2005) 10 SCC 471 the  

respondent  was  charged  with  possessing  assets  

disproportionate  to  his  known  sources  of  income.  The  

question  was  whether  disciplinary  proceedings  should  

9

Page 10

remain stayed pending a criminal charge being examined by  

the  competent  criminal  Court.  Allowing the  appeal  of  the  

employer-corporation this Court held:

“A 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  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   departmental  enquiry  and  trial  of  a  criminal  case  unless the charge in the criminal trial is of a grave   nature involving complicated questions of  fact  and  law….. Under these circumstances, what is required  to  be  seen  is  whether  the  departmental  enquiry  would  seriously  prejudice  the  delinquent  in  his   defense at the trial in a criminal case. It is always a   question  of  fact  to  be  considered  in  each  case   depending on its own facts and circumstances.”

(emphasis supplied)

12. It is unnecessary to multiply decisions on the subject  

for  the  legal  position  as  emerging  from  the  above  

pronouncements  and  the  earlier  pronouncements  of  this  

10

Page 11

Court in a large number of similar cases is well settled that  

disciplinary proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case  

can proceed simultaneously in the absence of any legal bar  

to such simultaneity. It is also evident that while seriousness  

of  the  charge  leveled  against  the  employees  is  a  

consideration, 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 will have to keep in mind the fact  

that  departmental  proceedings  cannot  be  suspended  

indefinitely  or delayed unduly.   In  Paul Anthony (supra)  

this  Court  went  a  step  further  to  hold  that  departmental  

proceedings can be resumed and proceeded even when they  

may have been stayed earlier in cases where the criminal  

trial does not make any headway. To the same effect is the  

decision of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. B.K.Meena  

1996(6) SCC 417, where this Court reiterated that there  

was  no  legal  bar  for  both  proceedings  to  go  on  

simultaneously unless there is a likelihood of the employee  

suffering prejudice in the criminal trial. What is significant is  

11

Page 12

that the likelihood of prejudice itself is hedged by providing  

that not only should the charge be grave but even the case  

must involve complicated questions of law and fact. Stay of  

proceedings at any rate cannot and should not be a matter  

of course. The following passage is in this regard apposite:

“there is no legal bar for both proceedings to go on  simultaneously  and  then  say  that  in  certain   situations,  it  may not  be 'desirable',  'advisable'  or   'appropriate' to proceed with the disciplinary 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 that no hard and  fast  rules  can  enunciated  in  that  behalf.  The only   ground  suggested  in  the  above  questions  as   constitution  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 grave nature involving questions of fact and   law. In our respectful opinion, it means that 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  the  facts  and   circumstances of the case. While it is not possible to   enumerate the various factors, for and against the  stay  of  disciplinary  proceedings,  we  found  it   necessary  to  emphasize  some  of  the  important   considerations in view of the fact that very often the   disciplinary  proceedings  are  being  stayed  for  long   periods  pending  criminal  proceedings.  Stay  of  disciplinary proceedings cannot be, and should not   be, a matter of course. All the relevant factors, for   and against, should be weighed and a decision taken   keeping in view the various principles laid down in   

12

Page 13

the decisions referred to above. … Indeed, in such  cases, it is all the more in the interest of the charged   officer  that  the  proceedings  are  expeditiously   concluded. Delay in such cases really works against   him.”

(emphasis supplied)

13. Suffice it to say that while there is no legal bar to the  

holding of the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal trial  

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 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 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  

13

Page 14

hand  and  the  competing  demand  for  an  expeditious  

conclusion of the on-going disciplinary proceedings on the  

other.  An  early  conclusion  of  the  disciplinary  proceedings  

has itself been seen by this Court to be in the interest of the  

employees.   

14. The  charges  leveled  against  the  respondents  in  the  

instant case are under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 356,  

427, 504, 506, 114 read with Section 149 I.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 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  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 does not suggest any complication or complexity  

either on facts or law.   

14

Page 15

15. That apart the respondents have already disclosed 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, it is evident from the record, was filed on  

20th August,  2011.  The  charges  were  framed  on  20th  

December,  2011.  The  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 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  near  completion.  Disciplinary  

proceedings  cannot  remain  stayed for  an indefinitely  long  

period. Such inordinate delay is neither in the interest of the  

appellant-company  nor  the  respondents  who  are  under  

suspension  and  surviving  on  subsistence  allowance.  The  

number of accused implicated in the case is also very large.  

We are not suggesting that the incident must be taken to be  

15

Page 16

false only because such a large number could not participate  

in the incident.  But there is a general tendency to spread  

the  net  wider  and  even  implicate  those  who  were  not  

concerned with the commission of the offences or who even  

though present committed no overt act to show that they  

shared the common object of the assembly or be responsible  

for the riotous behaviour of other accused persons. Interest  

of such accused as may be innocent also cannot be ignored  

nor  can  they  be  made  to  suffer  indefinitely  just  because  

some others have committed an offence or offences.   

16. In the circumstances and taking into consideration all  

aspects mentioned above as also keeping in view the fact  

that  all  the  three  Courts  below  have  exercised  their  

discretion  in  favour  of  staying  the  on-going  disciplinary  

proceedings,  we do  not  consider  it  fit  to  vacate  the  said  

order  straightaway.  Interests  of  justice  would,  in  our  

opinion, be sufficiently served if we direct the Court dealing  

with  the  criminal  charges  against  the  respondents  to  

conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible but in  

any case within a period of one year from the date of this  

16

Page 17

order.   We hope  and  trust  that  the  Trial  Court  will  take  

effective  steps  to  ensure  that  the  witnesses  are  served,  

appear and are examined. The Court may for that purpose  

adjourn the case for no more than a fortnight every time an  

adjournment is necessary.  We also expect the accused in  

the criminal case to co-operate with the trial Court for an  

early  completion of  the proceedings.   We say so because  

experience has shown that trials often linger on for a long  

time on account of non-availability of the defense lawyers to  

cross-examine the witnesses or on account of adjournments  

sought by them on the flimsiest of the grounds.  All  that  

needs  to  be  avoided.  In  case,  however,  the  trial  is  not  

completed within the period of one year from the date of  

this order, despite the steps which the Trial Court has been  

directed to take the disciplinary proceedings initiated against  

the  respondents  shall  be  resumed  and  concluded  by  the  

Inquiry Officer concerned.  The impugned orders shall in that  

case stand vacated upon expiry of the period of one year  

from the date of the order.   

17. In the result, we allow these appeals but only in part  

17

Page 18

and to the extent indicated above. The parties are left  to  

bear their own costs.  

.……………….……….…..…J.         (T.S. THAKUR)

    .…..…………………..…..…J.              (VIKRAMAJIT SEN)

New Delhi January 21, 2014

18