Ashish Mishra vs State Of U P And 2 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 8184 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 33
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9512 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Ashish Mishra
 
Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Prakash Sharma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State Respondents.

2. This petition has been filed praying for a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of the proceedings of charge sheet dated 15.02.2022 as issued to him through letter No. PF-05/2019 under Rule 14(1) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991(hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1991).

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was posted as Sub-Inspector, Police Station-Kuri Bazar, Thana-Belghat, District Gorakhpur, at the time when one Ajay Kumar @ Manoj S/o Ramraj gave a complaint to the respondent no.-03, the Inspector in-charge of Anti Corruption Unit, Gorakhpur against the petitioner saying that the petitioner had demanded Rs. 40,000/- for submitting final report in Case Crime No. 159 of 2019 under Section 313, 452, 504 IPC, Police Station-Belghat, District-Gorakhpur. On the basis of such complaint, a team for trapping the petitioner red handed was constituted and as per the FIR lodged by the respondents on 13.09.2019 in Case Crime No. 880 of 2019, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; On receipt of information regarding alleged demand of bribe, the Anti Corruption Unit contacted the Office of the District Magistrate to provide them two public servants to serve as witnesses to the trap proceedings. Such public servants were provided and the entire team then caught the petitioner red handed accepting bribe of Rs.40,000/- from the complainant on 12.09.2019. The petitioner was arrested and FIR was lodged on 13.09.2019 in Police Station-Cantt, District Gorakhpur. On account of FIR dated 13.09.2019, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur suspended the petitioner in contemplation of regular disciplinary proceedings. In Case Crime No. 880 of 2019 a charge sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer on 31.12.2019. The trial court took cognizance on 04.11.2019 and Special Trial No. 957 of 2019 is going on before the Special Judge Anti Corruption Act, Court No. 1/Additional District & Session Judge, Gorakhpur. The petitioner was released on bail by the court concerned on 24.01.2020. His Discharge Application has been rejected, however, by the trial court.

4. During the pendency of the criminal trial before the competent trial court proceedings under the Rules of 1991 have also been initiated against the petitioner and charge sheet dated 15.02.2020 has been served upon him.

5. It has been submitted by the petitioner that he has given his reply to the charge sheet before the Inquiry Officer. In the meantime, he has been reinstated in service on 30.06.2021 and the petitioner is working as Sub-Inspector in Police Station-Kuri Bazar, Thana Belghat, District Gorakhpur.

6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is facing two parallel proceedings on the same set of facts i.e. one criminal trial and the other departmental proceedings which is not permissible in view of the judgement rendered by the Supreme Courts in the case of M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines LTD. 1999 AIR (SC) 1416, G. M. Tank vs. State of Gujurat & Anr. in Civil Appeal No. 2582 of 2006 decided on 10.04.2006, and State Bank of India and others vs. R. B. Sharma (2004) 7 SCC 27 and as also a decision of this Court in Dhirendra Kumar Tiwari vs. State of U.P. and Others in Writ Petition No. 2705 of 2012 decided on 16.01.2002 and Writ -A No. 9777 of 2019, 'Chandra Shekhar Yadav vs. State of U.P. & 3 Others decided on 04.07.2019.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Virendra Kumar Sharma vs. State of U.P. 2002 (3) UPLBEC to say that when the criminal trial is proceeding on the same charges then departmental inquiry cannot be proceeded on the same set of facts.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to certain sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, to say that trial in corruption cases ought to be concluded within a period of two years and that before initiating proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act against the Government Servant sanction must be taken from the appropriate Government, which was not taken in the case of the petitioner.

9. This Court has gone through the judgments as referred to by the counsel for the petitioner and also the judgement cited by Sri Sharad Chand Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State Respondent, namely, NOIDA Entrepreneurs Assn. vs. NOIDA & Others 2007 (2) ADJ 86, and State of Karnataka & Anr. Vs. Umesh 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 304, and as also judgement of Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-A No. 2592 of 2022, 'Sonu Bharti vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others', decided on 24.03.2022, Rinku Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others 2021 Supreme (Allahabad) 830, and Surendra Singh and Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2012 (2) ADJ 135. However, this Court finds from a perusal of the charge sheet that has been issued to the petitioner on 15.02.2020 that no specific charge has been framed in the said charge sheet, the charge sheet starts with reference of FIR being lodged in Case Crime No. 878 of 2019(it is actually Case Crime No. 880 of 2019) under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018(it is actually 1988) and the petitioner being accused and being sent to jail as a result thereof and proceedings Rule 14(1) of the Rules of 1991 be initiated against him by the letter of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur dated 15.02.2020, the matter be assigned to the Inquiry Officer, the Central Officer, Cant, Gorakhpur, there is no mention of charge at all in the charge sheet, although, reference has been made two witnesses and the kind of evidence expected from them. A direction has been issued to the petitioner to reply to the charge sheet latest by 04.03.2022 and to specifically states that he needs to be heard personally and in case he wishes to produce any defence witnesses their details may also be given and the kind of evidence such defence witnesses were expected to give.

10. Having carefully examined the charge sheet, this Court finds that no charge at all has been framed. It is settled law that a charge sheet should have clear enumeration of charges in unambiguous language. In Appendix-01 of the Rules of 1991 relating to the procedure for conducting of departmental proceeding against a police officer under Rule 14(1), it has been provided that upon institution of a formal inquiry such police officer against whom the inquiry has been instituted shall be informed in writing of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action and shall be afforded an adequate opportunity of defending himself. The grounds on which it is proposed to take action shall be used in the form of a definite charge or charges which shall be communicated to the charged police officer and which shall be so clear and precise as to give sufficient indication to the police officer of the facts and circumstances against him.

11. In the case of petitioner, however, the Inquiry Officer has served a charge sheet perhaps with prior approval of the Appointing Authority without the Appointing Authority looking into the language of such charge sheet, the details of the FIR has also the year of the Prevention of Corruption Act have been wrongly mentioned. There is a complete non application of mind on the part of the Inquiry Officer as also the Appointing Authority.

12. The charge sheet is quashed, the matter is preferred to the opposite party no.1, the Principal Secretary, Home, Government of U.P. to call for the records and look into the case and pass appropriate orders for his subordinates to comply with regard to framing of charge in a charge sheet supplied to police officers of subordinate ranks.

13. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

14. A copy of this order be sent by the Registrar(Compliance) of this Court to the Principal Secretary/Additional Chief Secretary, Home, Government of U.P.

15. The respondents shall be at liberty to issue the fresh proper charge sheet with regard to discipline proceedings, if any, initiated against the petitioner.

Order Date :- 27.7.2022

Darpan Sharma