VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

886 DECISION - 485
(ii) On the facts of the case, held that as raid and
recovery at the residence were not proved in the
court prosecution, it would be unjust to treat it
otherwise in the departmental action.
(iii) ‘Dismissal’ set aside, following acquittal in court
prosecution.
(B) Suspension — subsistence allowance, non-payment of
Ex parte inquiry stands vitiated where charged
official was unable to attend due to non-payment
of subsistence allowance.
Capt. M.Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.,
1999(2) SLR SC 338
The Security Officer of Bharat Gold Mines Limited
(respondent) was proceeded against in a regular departmental action
for being found in possession of mining sponge gold ball and ‘gold
bearing sand’ in a raid conducted on his residence on 2-6-85 and
dismissed from service on 7-6-86. Simultaneously, he was
prosecuted on the same facts but was acquitted on 3-2-87.
The Supreme Court once again examined the position of
simultaneous departmental action and prosecution and summarised
the case law as follows: (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
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