Sangram Singh Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 20639 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:156731
 
Court No. - 34
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12724 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Sangram Singh Yadav
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Milan Mishra,Rajesh Kumar Tiwari
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

Heard Sri Ram Milan Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

Petitioner claims to have been chargesheeted in a departmental proceedings on the charges that came to be leveled in the first information report by the mother of the victim that her daughter was physically and sexually exploited.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that in a statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the victim she termed the incident to be consensual and, therefore, the very criminal charge goes. He submits that in a preliminary fact finding departmental inquiry also these statements have been taken into consideration. He submits that if petitioner is acquitted in a criminal case in view of what has been stated under Section 164 Cr.P.C., departmental proceedings are liable to be stayed because the allegations are the same and evidence will be the same.

In these circumstances, therefore, he submits that departmental proceedings be stayed or may be directed not to be finally concluded in the light of the provisions as contained in para 492 of Indian Police Regulations. He has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Sanjay Rai v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home Department, Lucknow and others (Service Single No.- 936 of 2015) decided on 28th April, 2016 and also relied upon a judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Coal Mines Limited and another: AIR 1999 SC 1416.

Per contra, it is argued by learned Standing Counsel that the rule of evidence is not strictly followed in matters of departmental proceedings where the principle of preponderance of probability in respect of the commission of an offence can be a guiding factor and therefore, it is not the stage where departmental proceedings may be completely stopped.

In the given facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of submission so advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is hereby provided that the petitioner may approach the superior authority along with an application to first consider as to whether the departmental proceedings can be continued in light of the relevant laws and rules in regard thereto and in the event petitioner approaches within a period of two weeks from today, disciplinary authority shall be passing appropriate orders thereupon, before proceeding any further with the departmental inquiry, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a further period of two months.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition stands disposed of.

Order Date :- 4.8.2023

Atmesh