Ravindra Nath Tripathi Constable ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6438 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 8
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4137 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Ravindra Nath Tripathi Constable Pno No 062170550
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Mishra,Chetan Sharma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

1. Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the charge-sheet dated 26.10.2020 issued by Inquiry Officer and further sought a direction to the respondents to wait for the outcome of the Criminal trial of Case Crime No. 0438/2018, U/S 364-A, 395 registered at P.S Indira Nagar district Lucknow.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner was posted as constable in Civil Police in P.S. Indira Nagar and was transfered from Lucknow to Kheri by means of order dated 24.07.2018 but it seems that petitioner did not join Kheri and remain absent for a substantial length of time. During this period, a first information report was lodged as F.I.R. No. 438/2018 at Police Station Indira Nagar Under Section 364, U/s 364-A, 395 I.P.C. on 28.07.2018 by one Anil Sharma pleading that 4 to 5 people had forcibly taken him inside a car near the picnic spot road. They threatened him with fire arms and they coerced him to pay Rs. 50,000/- failing which they threatened to kill him.

4. The complainant therein asked his brother to get Rs. 50,000/- and the petitioner was released only after giving Rs. 50,000/- ransom to them. The brother of the complainant had captured the photographs of the assailants in his mobile camera and pursuant to which first information report was lodged. According to the first information report the petitioner was allegedly one of the 5 persons involved in the said crime. In pursuance of the said first information report, the petitioner was arrested and also subsequently placed under suspension. After his release from jail on 17.01.2019, the petitioner moved a representation to the authorities to reinstate him in service and also approached this Court by filing a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 24806 (SS) of 2019 which was disposed of with a direction to respondents to duly consider his representation.

5. Subsequently, the suspension of the petitioner was revoked on 20.07.2020. In the meanwhile, a preliminary inquiry was conducted against the petitioner and he was served with the impugned charge-sheet dated 26.10.2020. In pursuance of the said charge-sheet, the petitioner has replied to the charges on 08.12.2020 denying the said charges and the inquiry has also been concluded and the Inquiry Officer has submitted his inquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority. In pursuance of the inquiry report, a show cause notice has been given to the petitioner on 07.06.2022 which has yet to the responded to by the petitioner.

6. The petitioner approached this Court challenging the charge-sheet mainly on the ground that charges levelled against him are identical in the criminal trial as well as disciplinary proceedings are identical and are based on the same evidence and hence relied on the judgment in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Another, 1999 (3) SCC 679, the disciplinary proceedings are required to be stayed.

7. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition stating that a very serious allegation has been levelled against the petitioner who is the member of uniform service who was found threatening and coercing a citizen and extorted an amount of Rs. 50000/-. He submits that evidence of the petitioner in the said crime as is evident from the perusal of the first information report. He has further submitted that the allegations in the impugned charge-sheet as well as criminal trial are substantially different and therefore the judgment in the case of Capt M. Paul Anthony (Supra) would not apply to the facts of the present case.

8. He further submits that now the inquiry proceedings are over inasmuch as the petitioner has duly submitted that his reply to the inquiry officer pursuant to which the Inquiry Officer has recorded his findings and submitted his report to the disciplinary authority. He submits that pursuant to the same, a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner.

9. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

10. Needless to say that petitioner who is working on the post of constable was found involved in a criminal case where a first information report was lodged against him on 28.07.2018 under Section 364-A and 395 I.P.C. The investigation in the said criminal case has also been concluded and the trial proceedings are pending before the competent court.

11. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was served with the charge-sheet on 26.10.2020 which has been impugned in the present writ petition.

12. In the said charge-sheet, it has been stated that by means of the order dated 13.07.2018, the petitioner was transferred in public interest from Special Task Force, Lucknow to District Kheri and he was also relieved on 24.07.2018. He was required to join in the transferred place of posting by 01.08.202018 but he did not join and during this period he was found involved in the criminal case being Case Crime No. 438 of 2018. He was incarcerated in prison from 11.10.2018 to 10.01.2019 and joined duties only on 23.02.2019. In the impugned charge-sheet the charges also relates to his unauthorized absence. A perusal of the charge-sheet would indicate that the main charge in fact pertains to unauthorized absence of the petitioner and it is during the said unauthorized period he was also involved in a criminal case.

13. In the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (Supra) cited by the petitioner, the Supreme Court has held as under:-

"The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are :

(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 case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge sheet.

(iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the Departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed.

(v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, administration may get rid of him at the earliest"

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly observed that departmental proceedings and proceedings in criminal can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar there in their being conducted simultaneously though separately. It is when there are complicated question of law and fact or where charges of grave nature it would be desirable to stay the disciplinary proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal trial.

15. In the present case, a perusal of the charge-sheet, it is noticed that one of the main charges against the petitioner is that despite having been relieved on 24.07.2018 he did not join to the transferred place of posting till 23.02.2019. In the preliminary inquiry, the finding of the Inquiry Officer is that prima facie he has been found guilty for unauthorized absence. It is noticed that both the charges are different. The disciplinary proceedings is mainly on the ground of unauthorized absence The second ground of distinction is that the petitioner has duly replied to the charge-sheet and after tendering his reply and all the material in his support Inquiry Officer has proceeded and concluded the inquiry and submitted his report to the disciplinary authority. The purpose of staying of the disciplinary proceedings is to protect the delinquent so as not to disclose his defence which may prejudice his case during criminal trial.

16. Considering this aspect of the case that the petitioner has already filed his reply which has been duly considered by the Inquiry Officer is not a case where the ratio of the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (Supra) would applied to the facts of the present case which is clearly distinguishable. The other orders of which parity have been sought by the learned counsel for petitioner before this Court are interim orders passed in the case of Rakesh Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Others (Writ A No. 5963 of 2022), Arun Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and Others (Writ A No. 6664 of 2022) and Videsh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Others (Writ A No. 5960 of 2022), which on the face of it do not enunciate any law which can be followed by this Court.

17. In light of the above facts and specially considering that the inquiry proceedings have already been concluded there is no application of law laid down in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (Supra). There is no material or any other infirmity in the impugned charge-sheet which may necessitate interference by this Court.

18. In light of the above, this Court does not find it a case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.

(Alok Mathur, J.)

Order Date :- 11.7.2022

Ravi/