Allahabad High Court
Prakash Chandra Sharma vs Union Of India And 3 Others on 8 May, 2023
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:98491
Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6396 of 2023
Petitioner :- Prakash Chandra Sharma
Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Durga Singh,Jai Krishna Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Archana Srivastava
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
Heard Shri Durga Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Archana Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.
It is the case of the petitioner that he has been implicated in F.I.R. lodged on dated 24.02.2023 in Case Crime No.0033 under Sections 379 and 411 of I.P.C.
Referring to the same incidence, a proper disciplinary proceeding has also been initiated by way of serving a copy of the charge sheet upon the petitioner on dated 07.03.2023.
By bare perusal of the above mentioned F.I.R. as well as charge sheet served upon the petitioner, the list of the witnesses are one and same.
Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the disciplinary proceeding as initiated by the competent authority of the department on the ground that on a similar set of facts, one F.I.R. has already been lodged against the petitioner, wherein, the list of the witnesses are same as mentioned in the charge sheet dated 07.03.2023. The ground as taken up by learned counsel for the petitioner has been substantiated with the judgment given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State Bank of India and Others Vs. Neelam Nag and Another (2016 9 SCC 491). Ratio of judgment has been again reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court itself in case of Shashi Bhushan Prasad Vs. Inspector General of CISF in case no. C.A. No.7130 of 2009 decided on 01.08.2019.
Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents vehemently opposed the prayer merely on the ground that the petitioner is a habitual offender who has already subjected for misconduct wherein, the punishment of censure has been given on several occasions and the detail of the same has been mentioned under charge no.4 of the charge sheet served under the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel raised her arguments that the benefit of the judgment as mentioned by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be extended to a habitual offender whose conduct has already been found negligent and the punishment has been awarded for near about five times.
Considering the stand taken up by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as by the learned Standing Counsel and after having the authorities pronounced by Hon'ble Apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent no.3 is hereby directed to consider the representation, if preferred, by the petitioner within next ten days for seeking benefit of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein, it has been held that simultaneous proceeding initiated at the criminal side as well as administrative side can be proceeded except the list of the witnesses may not be the same. Till the decision on the representation if preferred by the petitioner, the disciplinary proceeding as initiated against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance.
However, it is made clear that the disciplinary authority shall be at liberty to initiate the disciplinary proceeding only after passing the reasoned and speaking order within four weeks after the representation if preferred by petitioner and the same shall be in accordance with the judgment pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 8.5.2023
Vipasha
