Allahabad High Court
Dharmendra Kumar Yadav Pno No. ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 13 July, 2022
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 8
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4214 of 2022
Petitioner :- Dharmendra Kumar Yadav Pno No. 182112355
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl.Chief Secy Home U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Singh,Rakesh Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar holding brief of Sri Ramesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel appearing for the opposite parties.
2. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has assailed the entire disciplinary proceedings as well as suspension order dated 16.11.2021 and further seeks a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to restore the petitioner in service and pay him salary each and every month.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Constable on 11.7.2018 and was posted at Barabanki. a first information report No. No.283/2021 was lodged by one Mohd. Anees under Sections 323, 384, 504, , 506 IPC at police station Satrikh, Barabanki on 12.11.20221. During the investigation name of the petitioner came up as one of the accused and he was take into custody and subsequently enlarged on bail. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations as came up during the investigation disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Section 14(1)of U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1999 and charge sheet was also issued to the petitioner on 14.3.20222 which has also been replied to by the petitioner. It is stated that disciplinary proceedings are pending as on date. During the disciplinary proceedings the petitioner was placed under suspension on 16.11.2021. It is submitted that more than seven months have passed but he has not been restored back in service. He submits that investigation in the criminal case has also been concluded and the trial has commenced after filing of the charge sheet by the court of competent jurisdiction. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Limited and another, (1999) 3 SCC 769 and submits that disciplinary proceedings as well as criminal trial cannot proceed as they are based on same set of facts.
4. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the writ petition submitting that there are serious allegations against the petitioner, who is working in disciplined force like U.P. Police and on the basis of the said allegations he has been placed under suspension and on the date criminal trial is also underway. He also places reliance upon the judgment of Capt. M. Pau Anthony (supra) and submits that there is no bar in the proceedings of criminal trial as well as disciplinary proceedings being conducted simultaneously. He has further submitted on the basis of the instructions that in the disciplinary proceedings subsequent to filing of reply by the petitioner the inquiry officer has submitted his report on 6th May, 2021 to the competent authority. The inquiry proceedings have been concluded at the stage of inquiry and the same same is pending before the disciplinary authority since 16.5.2022.
5. I have heard the rival contentions.
6. It is noticed that the petitioner was involved in serious criminal acts to the effect that he misused his official position as a Constable in realizing illegal gratification using the colour of his office. It is noticed that protection as granted by various judgments of Supreme Court are granted to the delinquent employee where facts in criminal trial as well as disciplinary proceedings are identical and there are complicated questions of facts and law are involved. In the present case as per the averments made in the disciplinary proceedings the petitioner has already submitted his reply to the charge sheet and it is noticed that once reply to the charge sheet has already been given by the petitioner himself he cannot say that his defence would be prejudiced in criminal trial. This protection is available only prior to disciplinary proceedings but the benefit of taking this defence during the disciplinary proceedings would not be available at this stage where the inquiry officer has already concluded the inquiry proceedings pursuant to grant of adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
7. In view of above, this Court does not find any reason to interfere at this stage.
8. However, considering the fact that disciplinary proceedings have already been concluded by the investigating officer and are pending before the disciplinary authority and in view of the ratio of the judgment in the case of Capt. Paul Anthony (supra) and also considering the fact that the petitioner is under suspension for more than seven months and the matter is pending before the disciplinary authority since 16.5.2022, ends of justice would be met in case the authority is directed to pass final order and conclude the disciplinary proceedings, expeditiously, say within a maximum period of four weeks from the date a copy of this order is placed before him. It is ordered accordingly.
9. The writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid directions.
Order Date :- 13.7.2022 (Alok Mathur, J.)
RKM.
