# Machinery (Dudley) Ltd v. Crabtree'

- **Citation:** (2013) 1 ILRA 198
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-02-01
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4219 of 2011
- **Bench:** Tarun Agarwala
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/machinery-dudley-ltd-v-crabtree-42494
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226domestic
enquiry
and
criminal
proceeding initiated for causing death of
occupant-Indica car-the petitioner was
driving motorcycle met with accident
with Maruti car firing by official rifle
amount
to
misused
of
his
post
-
unlawfully used rifle by which the image
1 All] Nirdosh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Others
199
of police force tarnished-in domestic
enquiry all the charges found proveddismissal order confirmed by appellate
as
well
as
revisional
authoritiesdismissal
order
questioned
on
the
ground acquittal by criminal court by
giving benefit of doubt-held-domestic
disciplinary
proceeding
being
quite
different and distinguished-in domestic
enquiry stand proved-enquiry officer can
came to different confusions than by
criminal
court
on
merit-petition
dismissed.

Held: Para-12

 In the instant case the Court finds that
the charges mentioned in the domestic
disciplinary
proceedings
are
totally
different and distinct. The Court finds
that the charge of murder was slapped
against the petitioner in the criminal
proceedings where he was acquitted by
giving him a benefit of doubt and it was
not a clean acquittal. In the domestic
inquiry, the charge against the petitioner
was of misuse of his post and official rifle
while on duty, which was proved.
Case Law discussed:
(1999) 3 SCC 679; 2006 (5) SCC 446; 2005 (2)
UPLBEC 1802

## Text

198 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
substitute subjectivity by objectivity.
Absence of reasons in an order render it
virtually impossible for the courts to
perform their appellate function or
exercise the power of judicial review in
adjudging the validity of the decision.
Right to reasons is an indispensable part
of a sound judicial system. The court is
required to give reasons, at least sufficient
to indicate an application of mind to the
matter.

9. Another rationale in this context
is that the affected party can know why
the decision has gone against him. One of
the salutary requirements of natural
justice is spelling out reasons for the order
made, in other words, a speaking order. In
the above regards, reference may be made
to (2004) 1 SCC 547 : State of Punjab Vs.
Bhag Singh in which reference has been
made to 1974 ICR 120 (NIRC) Alexander
Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. Vs. Crabtree',
and (1971) 2 QB 175, Breen v.
Amalgamated' Engg. Union.

10. A heavily burdened judicial
system would be further burdened with
more cases, if without any good reason, a
person is summoned to face long drawn
litigation. One such case does not come in
isolation.
During
the
course
of
proceedings, various orders are passed
which
are
amenable
to
revisional/appellate
jurisdiction.
Such
burden of dispensable and avoidable
litigation, thus, is also carried to higher
courts.

11. Considering the above, it
becomes apparent that the order passed by
the Magistrate summoning the respondent
accused, is neither a reasoned order nor a
speaking order. The order does not, even
briefly, indicate the material brought by
the complainant on record, in context of
the ingredients of the offence allegedly
committed. Sufficiency of reason to
summon the petitioner as accused has not
been shown. In this view of the matter,
this Court does not find that the revisional
court has committed any jurisdictional
error in setting aside the order of
summoning. This court does not trace any
illegality in the order passed by the
revisional court.

12. The petition is accordingly
dismissed.

13. Complainant is directed to
appear before the Magistrate on the next
date fixed by the Magistrate.
---------
 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.02.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4219 of 2011

Nirdosh Kumar

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.S. Yadav
Sri S.K. Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Subhash Chandra
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226domestic
enquiry
and
criminal
proceeding initiated for causing death of
occupant-Indica car-the petitioner was
driving motorcycle met with accident
with Maruti car firing by official rifle
amount
to
misused
of
his
post
-
unlawfully used rifle by which the image
1 All] Nirdosh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Others
199
of police force tarnished-in domestic
enquiry all the charges found proveddismissal order confirmed by appellate
as
well
as
revisional
authoritiesdismissal
order
questioned
on
the
ground acquittal by criminal court by
giving benefit of doubt-held-domestic
disciplinary
proceeding
being
quite
different and distinguished-in domestic
enquiry stand proved-enquiry officer can
came to different confusions than by
criminal
court
on
merit-petition
dismissed.

Held: Para-12

 In the instant case the Court finds that
the charges mentioned in the domestic
disciplinary
proceedings
are
totally
different and distinct. The Court finds
that the charge of murder was slapped
against the petitioner in the criminal
proceedings where he was acquitted by
giving him a benefit of doubt and it was
not a clean acquittal. In the domestic
inquiry, the charge against the petitioner
was of misuse of his post and official rifle
while on duty, which was proved.
Case Law discussed:
(1999) 3 SCC 679; 2006 (5) SCC 446; 2005 (2)
UPLBEC 1802

(Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala,J.)

1. An incident took place in the
night of 29/30 August, 2004 wherein the
petitioner in the course of his duty met
with an accident with a Maruti Car while
driving his motorcycle as a result of
which, the petitioner fired from his
official rifle injuring one occupant in the
car, who eventually succumbed to his
injuries in the hospital. On the basis of
this incident, an F.I.R. was lodged against
an
unknown
police
officer
and
subsequently,
upon investigation the
petitioner's name surfaced and he was
charge
sheeted.
On
the
otherhand,
disciplinary proceedings were initiated
against the petitioner on the charge that he
had misused his post and had unlawfully
used his rifle, which has tarnished the
image of the police force. On the basis of
this charge, a domestic inquiry proceeding
was initiated and, after collecting the
evidence, the inquiry officer submitted a
report holding that the charge against the
petitioner stood proved. The disciplinary
authority issued a show cause notice and,
after considering the reply, passed an
order of dismissal. The petitioner, being
aggrieved, filed an appeal, which was
dismissed. The petitioner thereafter filed a
revision, which met the same fate. The
petitioner has now filed the present writ
petition.

2. During the pendency of the writ
petition, the petitioner was acquitted by
the Criminal Court, by a judgment dated
3.5.2001, which has been brought on
record.

3. In view of the acquittal, the
contention of the petitioner is, that since
the
departmental
proceedings
and
criminal proceedings were based on
identical or same set of facts and the
petitioner has been acquitted by a
Criminal
Court,
consequently,
the
impugned order of dismissal and further
the appellate and the revisional orders are
liable to be set aside and the petitioner is
liable to be reinstated.

4. In support of his submission the
learned counsel for the petitioner has
placed reliance upon a decision of the
Supreme Court in Captain M.Paul
Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.
and others, (1999) 3 SCC 679.

5. Having heard the learned counsel
for the petitioner at some length, the
200 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
Court finds that the position of law is well
settled, namely, that the departmental
proceedings and the criminal proceedings
can go on simultaneously, except where a
departmental proceeding and a criminal
proceeding are based on the same set of
facts and evidence and where the
witnesses are common in the said cases,
the Court has to decide taking into
account the said features of the case as to
whether simultaneously continuance of
both
the
proceedings
would
be
appropriate and proper or not.

6. In Captain M. Paul Anthony's
case (Supra) one of the ground where
departmental proceedings could be kept in
abeyance is:-

"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
desirable
to
stay
the
departmental
proceedings till the conclusion of the
criminal case."

7. In G.M Tank Vs. State of Gujarat
and Others, 2006 (5) SCC 446 the
Supreme
Court
held
that
where
departmental proceedings and criminal
case are based on identical and similar set
of facts and the charges in a departmental
case against the applicant and the charges
before the Criminal Court are one and the
same, in which case, the departmental
proceedings would be stayed till the
disposal of the criminal case.

8. The Supreme Court in the
aforesaid case has clearly stated that
where the case is of a grave nature and
involves questions of fact and law, in that
event, it would be advisable for the
Authority to await the decision of the
criminal Court.

9. In the light of the aforesaid, there
leaves no scope for doubt that there is no
bar for simultaneous proceedings being
taken against the delinquent employee in
the form of a criminal action and also in
the form of a disciplinary proceedings
unless the charges are extremely serious
and
grave
requiring
judicial
administration in preference to the verdict
in domestic enquiry proceedings.

10. In the instant case there is
nothing on record to suggest that the
criminal proceedings and the domestic
proceedings are based on same set of facts
or similar set of facts. There is no
evidence to indicate that the evidence and
the witnesses were the same.

11. In the instant case a criminal
action and disciplinary proceedings are
not grounded upon the same set of facts.
In the opinion of the Court, the purpose of
the two proceedings are quite different.
The
object
of
the
departmental
proceedings is to ascertain whether the
petitioner is required to be retained in
service or not. On the other hand, the
object of the criminal prosecution is to
find out whether the offence in the penal
statute has been made out or not.
Therefore, in the opinion of the Court the
area covered by the two proceedings are
distinct and different and are not identical.
The object of both the proceedings are
different.
Whereas
the
departmental
proceedings
are
taken
to
maintain
discipline in the service, the criminal
proceedings is initiated to punish a person
for committing an offence violating any
public duty.
1 All] S.N. Maheshwari Vs. The General Manager, Syndicate Bank and others
201

12. In the instant case the Court
finds that the charges mentioned in the
domestic disciplinary proceedings are
totally different and distinct. The Court
finds that the charge of murder was
slapped against the petitioner in the
criminal proceedings where he was
acquitted by giving him a benefit of doubt
and it was not a clean acquittal. In the
domestic inquiry, the charge against the
petitioner was of misuse of his post and
official rifle while on duty, which was
proved.

13. In Abhay Raj Singh Vs. Bank
of Baroda and another 2005 (2)
UPLBEC 1802, the Court held that:-

"it is well settled principle of law that
the degree of proof required in a
departmental enquiry is vastly different
than the degree of proof required to prove
a criminal charge. In the departmental
enquiry the findings can be recorded in
preponderance of probabilities and it is
not necessary that the charge must be
proved to the hilt. The departmental
proceedings and the criminal proceedings
are entirely different in nature. They
operate in different fields and they have
different objectives. The material or the
evidence in the two proceedings may or
may not be the same and, in some cases,
at least, material or evidence which would
be relevant or open for consideration in
the departmental proceeding, may be
irrelevant in the criminal proceeding. The
Rules relating to the appreciation of the
evidence in the two enquiries may also be
different. The standard of proof, the mode
of enquiry and the rules governing the
enquiry and the trial in both the cases are
entirely distinct and different.

The law is well settled that the
Inquiry Officer can come to a different
conclusion than arrived at by a Criminal
Court and that it is immaterial whether the
charges were identical or the witnesses
were the same, as long as the power
exercised by the Criminal Court and the
inquiry under the relevant law and the
service law and the distinct and separate.
There is no bar for holding a disciplinary
proceeding during the pendency of the
trial though the basis may be one and the
same. It is for the disciplinary authority to
decide as to whether in a given case it
should keep the domestic enquiry pending
till the outcome of the criminal trial or
not."

14. For the reasons stated aforesaid,
the Court does not find any merit in the
writ petition.

15. The writ petition is dismissed.
---------
 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.02.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.4492 of 1999

S.N. Maheshwari

...Petitioner
Versus
The General Manager, Syndicate Bank
and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.K. Singh
Sri D.P. Singh
Sri Ravi Kiran Jain

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri P.K. Singhal
C.S.C.