Kusheshwar Dubey

vs Bharat Coking
Coal Ltd. & Ors
1988 AIR 2118

Facts

The appellant is an employee in the Balihari Colliery of

the Respondent No.1. He was working as an electrical
helper.

In 1986 he was alleged for physically assaulting a

supervising officer, for which he was subjected to both
disciplinary proceedings and a criminal prosecution.

The appellant filed a civil action asking for injunction

against the disciplinary action pending criminal trial,
Since both the disciplinary proceedings and criminal
trial were taken simultaneously.

The trail court made an order staying further proceedings

in the disciplinary action till disposal of the criminal case.

The Respondent No. appealed against the order and the

appeal was dismissed by the appellate court.

Thereupon the respondent No.1 moved the high court in

its revisional jurisdiction.

The high court allowed the revision application and set

aside the impugned order on the ground that there is no
bar for an employer to proceed with the departmental
proceeding with regard to the same allegation for which a
criminal case is pending.

Contentions in the SLP

The appellant contends that:

1. The legal position settled by this court supported the

stand that the disciplinary action had to be stayed till the
criminal case was over.

2. That there are also authorities in support of the

position that
there is nothing wrong in parallel
proceedings being taken one by way of the disciplinary
proceeding and the other in the criminal court.

3. That the court should settle the law in a straight jacket

formula as judicial opinion appear to be conflicting.

Issue

Whether there should or should not be

simultaneity of the proceedings (criminal trial
and disciplinary proceedings) ?

Reasoning

Court held that while there could be no legal bar for simultaneous
proceedings being taken, yet, there may be cases where it would be
appropriate to defer disciplinary proceedings awaiting disposal of the
criminal case. And that in the latter class of cases it would be open to
the delinquent employee to seek such an order of stay or injunction
from the court.

Further stated that whether, in the facts and circumstances of a

particular case, there should or should not be such simultaneity of the
proceedings would then receive judicial consideration and the court will
decide in the given circumstances of a particular case as to whether the
disciplinary proceedings should be interdicted, pending criminal trial.

It is neither possible nor advisable to evolve a hard and fast, straightjacket formula valid for all cases and of general application without
regard to the particularities of the individual situation.

Held

Special leave allowed.

Order of the high court vacated and that of the

trial court is restored.

The criminal action and the disciplinary

proceedings were grounded upon the same set
of facts. The disciplinary proceedings should
have been stayed and the high court was not
right in interfering with the trial courts order of
injunction which had been affirmed in appeal.