Allahabad High Court
Chhote Lal Pal vs State Of U P And 3 Others on 2 August, 2021
Bench: Yashwant Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8858 of 2021
Petitioner :- Chhote Lal Pal
Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- R.B. Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Piyush Shukla, the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
The instant writ petition has been preferred seeking the following relief:
"(i)- Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner under Rule 14(1) of Uttar Pradesh Police Officer of Subordinate Ranks, (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, in pursuance of the order/Charge sheet dated 04.05.2016 (Annexure-3 to this writ petition) issued by the respondent no.4.
(ii) (i)- Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents, to stay the further departmental disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner in pursuance of the order/charge sheet dated 04.05.2016."
The submission of learned counsel was that since both the criminal case as well as the disciplinary proceedings rest on identical facts, the charge sheet is liable to be quashed. Learned counsel has placed reliance in this regard on the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Coal Mines Ltd. [AIR 1999 SC 1416 and State Bank Of India And Others Vs. R.B. Sharma [(2004) 7 SCC 27]. He has additionally placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by a learned Judge of the Court in Chandra Shekhar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. And 3 Others [Writ -A No. - 9777 of 2019, decided on 04 July 2019].
The Court notes that the first prayer as made is clearly misplaced since the mere pendency of a criminal case based on what is asserted to be identical facts cannot result in the quashing of the charge sheet. As was held in the decisions of the Supreme Court noted above as well as in Chandra Shekhar Yadav where both proceedings rest on identical facts and evidence, the disciplinary authority may be obliged to consider whether disciplinary proceedings should be kept in abeyance till the conclusion of the criminal case. The decisions which are referred to are not authorities for the proposition that a charge sheet must necessarily be quashed merely because criminal prosecution has been lodged on identical facts. In view of the aforesaid, Relief (i) cannot be granted and is consequently refused.
Insofar as the Relief (ii) is concerned, the Court notes that the charge sheet was issued way back in May 2016. However, learned counsel for the petitioner candidly admits that after issuance of the charge sheet, no further steps have been taken by the disciplinary authority. In view of the aforesaid, the Court finds no ground to entertain the writ petition insofar as Relief (ii) is concerned at this stage. This since it shall be open to the petitioner to assail any action that the respondents may choose to take towards revival of the disciplinary proceedings.
Accordingly, this petition shall stand disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach again in case proceedings in departmental enquiry which has remained pending since 2016 are commenced. All rights and contentions of respective parties on merits in that respect are kept open.
Order Date :- 2.8.2021
Arun K. Singh
(Yashwant Varma, J.)
