Facts of the Case

The petitioner, D. Tata Rao, was working as an Inspector of Central Tax (Group B Non-Gazetted) in the Hyderabad Audit-I Commissionerate. He approached the Telangana High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 27.10.2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A. No. 707 of 2022, together with proceedings arising from the Charge Memorandum dated 02.02.2021.

The petitioner sought quashing of the Tribunal’s order and a direction to keep the departmental charge memorandum in abeyance until completion of the criminal trial.

According to the petitioner, he had been falsely implicated as Accused No. 4 in C.C. No. 7 of 2019, pending before the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases at Nampally, Hyderabad. Departmental proceedings were also initiated against him on what he asserted to be the same set of allegations.

Earlier, the petitioner had filed O.A. No. 738 of 2021 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. By order dated 01.12.2021, the Tribunal stayed the disciplinary proceedings for a period of six months.

After expiry of that period, the respondents issued an Inquiry Notice dated 28.10.2022, requiring the petitioner to appear for enquiry on 10.11.2022 at 12:00 hours. The petitioner then approached the Tribunal through O.A. No. 707 of 2022.

A significant aspect of the petitioner’s case was that Accused No. 1, another employee involved in the same criminal case, had filed O.A. No. 686 of 2022, in which the Tribunal, by order dated 14.10.2022, stayed the departmental proceedings until further orders. However, in the petitioner’s case, the Tribunal merely ordered notice and declined interim relief on the ground that granting an interlocutory order would violate Section 24 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Issues Involved

The principal issues before the High Court were:

  1. Whether the petitioner, being Accused No. 4 in the same criminal case, was entitled to consideration on parity with the applicant in O.A. No. 686 of 2022, who had received interim protection against departmental proceedings.
  2. Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal could adopt a different approach by granting stay to one employee while declining comparable interim protection to another employee involved in the same criminal case.
  3. Whether the departmental enquiry should proceed before the Tribunal re-examined the petitioner’s claim for parity.
  4. Whether the Tribunal’s reliance on Section 24 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 justified refusal of interim relief in the petitioner’s case when interim protection had already been granted in the connected matter of another accused employee.
  5. Whether the High Court should exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to remit the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner contended that:

  • He was falsely implicated in C.C. No. 7 of 2019.
  • The criminal case and departmental proceedings arose from the same set of allegations.
  • The Tribunal had earlier stayed the disciplinary proceedings for six months in O.A. No. 738 of 2021.
  • After expiry of that stay period, the respondents resumed the departmental enquiry and directed him to appear on 10.11.2022.
  • Another employee, who was Accused No. 1 in the same criminal case, had obtained a stay of departmental proceedings in O.A. No. 686 of 2022.
  • Since the petitioner was Accused No. 4 in that very criminal case, his request for similar protection ought to have been considered on the same footing.
  • The Tribunal could not apply different yardsticks by granting interim protection to one employee while denying it to the petitioner.
  • The matter should therefore be reconsidered by the Tribunal consistently with the treatment accorded in O.A. No. 686 of 2022.

Respondents’ Arguments

The respondents opposed the writ petition and contended that:

  • Each case must be examined independently on its own facts and circumstances.
  • The charges levelled against the petitioner were grave in nature.
  • The Tribunal had merely ordered notice and intended to consider the petitioner’s case after service of notice upon the respondents.
  • There was no sufficient merit in the writ petition warranting interference by the High Court.
  • Accordingly, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed.

Court Order / Findings

The Telangana High Court considered the rival submissions and held that the ends of justice would be met by remanding the matter to the Central Administrative Tribunal.

The High Court directed the Tribunal to:

  • Re-examine the petitioner’s case in terms of its earlier order passed in O.A. No. 686 of 2022; and
  • Pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

The Court further noticed an important timing issue:

  • O.A. No. 707 of 2022 was listed before the Tribunal on 05.12.2022;
  • The petitioner had already been directed to appear for departmental enquiry on 10.11.2022 at 12:00 hours.

Therefore, the High Court ordered that the proceedings dated 28.10.2022, requiring the petitioner to appear for enquiry on 10.11.2022, shall be kept in abeyance until the Tribunal re-examines the petitioner’s case and deals with it on par with the applicant in O.A. No. 686 of 2022.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of without costs, and pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were closed.

Important Clarification

This judgment should not be understood as laying down an absolute rule that departmental proceedings must invariably be stayed whenever a criminal case is pending.

The High Court’s operative approach was narrower and case-specific:

  • The Court focused on the fact that another employee involved in the same criminal case had already obtained interim protection from the Tribunal.
  • The Court directed the Tribunal to re-examine the petitioner’s case in terms of its earlier order in O.A. No. 686 of 2022.
  • The High Court itself did not finally quash the charge memorandum.
  • The High Court did not finally direct that the departmental proceedings remain stayed until completion of the criminal trial.
  • The immediate enquiry notice dated 28.10.2022 was kept in abeyance only until the Tribunal reconsidered the matter and dealt with the petitioner’s case on par with the applicant in O.A. No. 686 of 2022.

Accordingly, the case is particularly relevant to the principles of parity, consistent treatment in connected service matters, simultaneous criminal and departmental proceedings, and judicial review of interim procedural treatment by an Administrative Tribunal.

Sections / Legal Provisions Involved

Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Invoked by the petitioner to seek a writ of certiorari against the Tribunal’s order and consequential relief concerning the departmental proceedings.

Section 24 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
Relevant because the Tribunal had declined interim relief to the petitioner on the ground that granting an interlocutory order would violate Section 24.

Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The interlocutory application before the High Court sought stay of departmental proceedings by invoking the inherent powers provision.

Link to download the order https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783333405_1133compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.