Allahabad High Court
Balwan Singh Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue ... on 8 April, 2025
Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19786
Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3765 of 2025
Petitioner :- Balwan Singh Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Satendra Jaiswal,Alok,Ashwini Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Tushar Verma, learned Standing counsel for the respondents.
2. By this petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of the following reliefs:-
"1. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of order bearing no. 2694, dated 17.10.2024 issued for initiation of departmental enquiry along with the charge sheet dated 17.10.2024 & the supplementary charge dated 08.11.2024 by which, disciplinary proceedings was initiated, contained as ANNEXURE NO.1, 2 & 3 to the writ petition.
2. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the opposite party no.3 to stay/hold the departmental proceedings initiated vide order dated 17.10.2024, by issuing the charge sheet dated 17.10.2024 & the supplementary charge dated 08.11.2024, until criminal proceedings has been concluded, in light of judgment & order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Coal Mines Ltd. & Another reported in AIR 1999 Supreme Court, 1416.
3. ?To issue any order or direction as the Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in circumstances of the case;
4. To award the cost of the petition to the petitioner."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that departmental proceedings and criminal trail cannot go hand in hand as the charges are same. He has relied on the judgement of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another (1999) 3 SCC 679.
Learned Standing Counsel has drawn attention of the Court towards the charge-sheet given to the petitioner contained in Annexure-2 and has submitted that the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner and consequently 9 (nine) charges have been framed against him by the inquiry officer. He submits that except charge nos. 1 and 2, the rest of the charges are different. Criminal trial is pending for charges nos. 1 and 2, which are on the same set of charges. For the other charges, the disciplinary proceeding is being continued.
He submits that in view of the judgement of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra) (paragraph 22) there is no bar to continue disciplinary proceedings if it is on additional charges which are not subject matter of criminal trail.
He further submits that earlier the petitioner had challenged the order dated 17.10.2024 and also the suspension order dated 17.10.2024, however, he could not challenge the impugned orders i.e., the charge sheet dated 17.10.2024 and the supplementary charge sheet dated 08.11.2024. It is submitted that the petition is barred by the principle of constructive res judicata and the prayer made in this petition cannot be granted for the same reason.
Perusal of the order dated 3.12.2024, by which the earlier petition filed by the petitioner numbered as Writ-A 11497 of 2024, Balwan Singh Yadav vs. State of U.P. and another, was dismissed, shows that while dismissing the petition the court has considered the order passed by the authority by which the petitoner has been placed under suspension. The petitioner had the opportunity in the first round of litigation to challenge the other orders by which disciplinary proceedings and the charge-sheet had been issued, but he chose not to challenge those orders. The order passed by the single judge has been upheld in the special appeal numbered as Special Appeal Defective No.62 of 2025. The relevant portion of the order passed in Writ A No. 11497 of 2024 dated 3.12.2024, reads as under:
"10. While quashing the charge-sheet, this Court has clearly observed that it is always open for the competent authority to take appropriate decision to conduct departmental inquiry against the petitioner if it is so required strictly in accordance with law by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, clearly the writ court on the previous occasion had also kept it open for the respondents to proceed with the departmental proceeding against the petitioner in accordance with law and therefore by means of impugned order dated 17.10.2024 the petitioner has again been placed under suspension by order passed by the Director, Land Acquisition who as per the petitioner's own contention is his appointing authority. Accordingly, this Court does not find that the impugned order of suspension suffers from any jurisdictional error inasmuch as the same has been passed by the competent authority who is the appointing authority of the petitioner.
11. With regard to the second contention raised by the petitioner that the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal trial cannot proceed simultaneously, it is relevant to quote the provisions of law laid by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony:
"22. The conclusions which are deducible from the various decisions of this Court referred to above are:
(i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in 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 charge in criminal case against delinquent employees 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 criminal case.
(iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case will depend upon the nature of the offence, the nature of case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during the 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 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 pendency of 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."
12. From the aforesaid, it is clear that there is no bar in conduct of the disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings simultaneously and in the present case only a first information report has been lodged and there is no averment that even the charge-sheet has been filed before the Court of competent jurisdiction. Accordingly, at this stage, it cannot be said that the petitioner is facing a criminal trial, accordingly, this Court also finds that there is no averment that there are complicated set of facts and law involved in the said case nor is there any proceedings in this regard in the entire writ petition. Accordingly, no ground is made out for interference on the ground that both the proceedings cannot go simultaneously.
13. This Court does not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order, the writ petition is bereft of merits and is accordingly dismissed. However, it is provided that the inquiry be conducted expeditiously in accordance with law."
A perusal of the record further shows that prima facie the charge sheet served to the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings includes charges which may not be the subject matter of the criminal trial.
Submission of the learned Standing counsel has force.
Claim of the petitioner is barred by the principle of constructive res judicata. The petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the order dated 17.10.2024 by which departmental proceedings have been initiated and the charge-sheet has been served as well as supplementary charge-sheet. He has ample opportunity to challenge the same in the first round of litigation, which he has not challenged.
The petition is barred by constructive res-judicata and, therefore, the petition cannot be entertained and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 8.4.2025
Madhu D.R/P.S
