Dr. Hamidullah Bhat v. Central Bureau of Investigation

1. By way of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.Cfiled on behalf of the petitioner for seeking stay of further proceedings before the Ld. Special Judge (PC Act), Rouse Avenue District Courts, Delhi in CC No.18/2020 titled as “CBI Vs. Hamidullah Bhat”.

2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that criminal prosecution cannot proceed against the petitioner after being exonerated in a departmental inquiry for the same allegations. Learned senior counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on Ajit Singh Soodha v. Union of India (SLP No. 6489/2021, order dated 13.09.2021) and AshooSurendranath Tewari v. Deputy Superintendent of Police [ (2020) 9 SCC 636]. 2021:DHC:3751

3. Ld. SPP for CBI submitted that the petitioner is seeking setting aside of the order on charge and there is absolutely no need of staying the proceedings in the Trial court, and seeks some time to file reply. It is further submitted by counsel for the respondent CBI that exoneration in the departmental proceeding ipso facto would not result into the quashing of the criminal prosecution. The findings of a departmental proceedings are not binding on the proceedings for criminal prosecution and the two are independent in nature of one another and the facts of this case cannot be equated with the facts of the case on which the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is relying.

4. I have heard counsels for the parties and have perused the record.

5. In the instant case, the departmental enquiry was initiated with respect to three articles. In Article 1, Dr. M. Hamidullah Bhat (petitioner herein), former Director, National Council for Promotion of Urdu Language while working as such during the period 1.1.1997 to 30.9.2005 was found to be in the possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to the extent of Rs. 1,84,623/-; In Article 2, it was found that the petitioner, failed to intimate the prescribed authority about the heavy transaction of various amounts from an NRI Account No. 4248 at J&K Bank, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi in the name of Dr. IshtiaqueShafie Ahmed to the Saving Bank Account No. 1919 at Bank of Maharashtra, Dayal Bagh, Faridabad in the name of Smt. Asmat Ara, the wife of Dr. Hamidullah Bhat/petitioner and in Article 3, it was found that he had failed to intimate the prescribed authority about the purchase of a flat at D-2, Noor Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi. Mr. Amit Khare, the Joint Secretary and Enquiring Authority in the Departmental Enquiry Report dt. 19.8.2011, held the charges with respect to Article 1, Article 2 and Article 3, to be Not proved, Proved and Proved, respectively. The petitioner herein, submitted a reply vide his letter dated 6.3.2012, wherein, he took the plea that no penalty can be imposed on a retired public servant. After careful consideration of the Inquiry Report in consultation with Central Vigilance Commission, the Disciplinary Authority accepted the inquiry report and keeping in view the proven aspects of the charge, imposed on the petitioner, a minor penalty of Censure vide Order dated 04.04.2012.

6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. Deputy Superintendent of Police [(2020) 9 SCC 636], wherein it was observed that, “in view of the detailed CVC order dated 22.12.2011, the chances of conviction of the petitioner in a criminal trial involving the same facts appear to be bleak.” However, the present case is not the one wherein, the allegations against the accused, namely, Dr. M Hamidullah Bhat were found to be not sustainable on merits and he was exonerated and held innocent. Rather, he was only partially exonerated with respect to Article 1 in the departmental inquiry and the charges were proved with respect to Article 2 and Article 3. A minor penalty was also imposed, thus, denoting that the conclusive finding of the departmental inquiry was contrary to exoneration of the petitioner herein. Furthermore, in the impugned Order on Charge dated 25.08.2021, the percentage of alleged disproportionate assets has worked out to be 23.90%, which is much more than the amount reflected in disproportionate assets to his known source of income as per departmental proceedings. Therefore, at this stage stay of further proceedings before the Ld. Special Judge (PC Act), Rouse Avenue District Courts, Delhi in CC No.18/2020 titled as “CBI Vs. Hamidullah Bhat” shall not be in the interest of justice.

7. As far as the judgments relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner are concerned, there is no dispute with regard to the proposition of law laid down in the said judgments, but with due regard, the same are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, no ground for stay at this stage is made out.

8. The application stands disposed of.

9. List on 15.03.2022.

10. Let reply be filed by the respondent-CBI within eight weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.

11. The date already fixed, i.e., 05.01.2022 stands cancelled.

RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J NOVEMBER 22, 2021 ak