THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI
W.P.No. 25293 of 2022
ORDER:
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing order No.HCP/B-II/BB/0005/2019, dated 06.06.2022 pursuant to the Articles of Charge vide Memorandum P.R.No.20/2022/No.HCP/BII/B8/0005/2019, dated 24.03.2022 and proceedings with the departmental enquiry while Criminal case is pending i.e., CC.17 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the respondents No.2 and 3 not to proceed with the departmental enquiry pursuant to the articles of charges vide P.R.No.20/2022/No.HCP/BII/B8/0005/2019, dated 24.03.2022 till conclusion of Criminal Case in CC.No.17 of 2022, pending on the file of Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner had joined the Police Department on 24.12.2010 as Sub-Inspector of Police and thereafter, in course of transfer, he was posted to P.S.Bollaram w.e.f. 10.11.2017. It is submitted that while working as a Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Bollaram, a 2 W.P.No.25293 of 2022 complaint was given by one Smt.K.N.Ambika, W/o.J.Narsingh Rao that the petitioner demanded a bribe of Rs.20,000/- for not arresting her husband, who was facing criminal charges. It was complained that the negotiations were made through one M.Nagesh, constable and payment have also been made through PhonePay. Therefore, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner and Mr.M.Nagesh, constable and the same is pending trial in C.C.No.17 of 2022. It is submitted that while the FIR was registered on 17.06.2019, vide memo dated 24.03.2022, the respondents have initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and served the copy of the articles of charges on the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner, has immediately made representations dated 01.04.2022 and 25.05.2022 respectively, to the 2nd respondent requesting him to keep the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in abeyance until conclusion of ACB case. It is submitted that since both the criminal case and the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated on the same set of facts and the list of witnesses and documents are also same, the petitioner will be facing difficulty and it would cause prejudice to him if the petitioner were to disclose his defense in the disciplinary proceedings before the conclusion of criminal proceedings.
3
W.P.No.25293 of 2022
3. It is submitted that the respondents however, have not considered the same and have appointed Mr.K.V.Muralidhr Prasad, Additional DCP, CCS, DD, Hyderabad, as the Inquiry Officer vide proceedings dated 06.06.2022 and also directed the witnesses to appear before the Inquiry Officer vide memo dated 09.06.2022. He further submits that the action of the respondents in not considering the request of the petitioner is in violation of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Captain M.Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Limited and Another1.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further filed a copy of the charge sheet and also FIR to demonstrate that the list of witnesses and the documents relied upon by both the officers, in the criminal case as well as disciplinary proceedings are one and the same.
5. Learned Government Pleader for Home, on the other hand relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit and submitted that the petitioner being a Sub-Inspector of Police, has indulged in demanding and accepting bribe through Sri.Nagesh, constable and that the entire conversation between the complainant and constable were recorded in electronic gadget and therefore, the petitioner had indulged in an act which was unbecoming of a Police Officer and accordingly, the disciplinary proceedings have also been 1 (1999) 3 SCC 671 4 W.P.No.25293 of 2022 initiated against the petitioner. He places reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.184 of 2020, dated 30.09.2020 for the proposition that where both the disciplinary proceedings as well as the criminal proceedings are going on, particularly in the case of Police Officer, it's not advisable to allow the proceedings to hang over for a long time.
6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the criminal case was registered against the petitioner in the year 2019 and the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated in the year 2022. On going through the material on record, both the FIR and the charge sheet and also the articles of charges issued in the case of disciplinary proceedings, it is noticed that in both, the list of witnesses and also the documents relied upon by the prosecution officers are one and the same. In such circumstances, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Captain M.Paul Anthony (cited supra) would definitely apply and the disciplinary proceedings would have to be stayed till conclusion of the criminal case. The decision on which the learned Government Pleader for Home, has relied upon is in the case of a Police Officer who was alleged to have cheated a woman and a case of Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act were registered against him. In the said case the 5 W.P.No.25293 of 2022 criminal case was registered in the year 2017 and the departmental proceedings were initiated in the year 2020. The Hon'ble Division Bench had observed that there cannot be a clear cut formula laid down to say as to whether the charges in the departmental proceedings are same as the charges in the criminal proceedings and in a given case if the charges in the departmental proceedings are of such nature, it cannot be enquired into as the reasons for such charges are totally and substantially the same as that of the charges framed in the criminal proceedings. It was further observed that when the result of the criminal trial will have a direct impact on the outcome of the departmental proceedings, the Court may take a view that the departmental proceedings may be deferred. In view of the above observation, this Court finds that the decision to stay the departmental proceedings during the pendency of a criminal case would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
7. In view of the same, on perusal of the material on record, this Court is of the opinion that the departmental proceedings should be stayed till the conclusion of the criminal case against the petitioner as both the departmental proceedings as well as criminal proceedings are initiated on the basis of the very same set of facts and list of witnesses. Respondents are however, given liberty to 6 W.P.No.25293 of 2022 proceed with departmental proceedings as soon as the criminal proceedings are concluded.
8. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_____________________________ JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI Date: 31.10.2022 bak 7 W.P.No.25293 of 2022 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETITION No. 25293 of 2022 Date: 31.10.2022 bak