Deepak Tripathi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4368 MP

                                                          WP No.22390-2021
                                       1


    IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR

                                   BEFORE

      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI


                       ON THE 29th OF MARCH, 2022


                   WRIT PETITION No. 22390 of 2021

      Between:-
       DEEPAK TRIPATHI S/O RAMESH KUMAR
       TRIPATHI,  AGED    ABOUT   29  YEARS,
       OCCUPATION: S.I., DISTRICT PANNA R/O
    1.
       RAJNANDADINI      CHHATARPUR      P.S.
       CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                          .....PETITIONER

      (BY SHRI SIDDHARTH SINGH, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
      PETITIONER)

      AND

       THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.
       ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT
       OF HOME, VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA
    1.
       PRADESH)

       DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, HEADQUARTER
    2. BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

       SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DISTT. PANNA
    3. (MADHYA PRADESH)

       STATION HOUSE OFFICER P.S SEMARIYA DISTT.
    4. PANNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                       .....RESPONDENTS

      (BY SHRI JUBIN PRASAD, LEARNED PANEL LAWYER, FOR THE
      RESPONDENTS/STATE)




          This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed

the following:


                                   ORDER

Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.

WP No.22390-2021

2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 13.02.2021 whereby the petitioner has been charged in the departmental inquiry proceeding based on the similar offences as charge-sheeted in the criminal proceedings.

3. The petitioner is presently working as a Sub-Inspector in the department of police at District Panna. On 13.02.2021 a suspension letter was issued to the petitioner on the basis of an alleged offence in which FIR registered by Mahila Thana, District Rewa in Crime No.24/21. It is pertinent to mention that the allegation based on which the suspension order was issued was infact registered at a later date as an FIR.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the charges in the departmental inquiry as well as in the criminal proceedings are similar, therefore, continuation of the departmental proceedings till the final adjudication of the criminal trial in respect of the charges cannot proceed simultaneously as such the proceedings in departmental inquiry be stayed till the final out come of the criminal case.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Capt.M.Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. And another, 1999 (3) SCC 679 and contended that the departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case cannot go on simultaneously since charges are based on same sets of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common, even witnesses are also common and continuation of the departmental proceedings is likely to prejudice the defence in criminal Court. In such circumstances, the departmental proceedings may be stayed.

WP No.22390-2021

6. For the purpose of convenience, charges in the departmental proceedings are reproduced below:-

vkjksi 1- pkSdh gjnqvk ¼Fkkuk flefj;k½ esa rSukrh ds nkSjku jks0lk0dza0 517 fnukad 28-01-2021 ij LokLF; ijh{k.k gsrq lh0,p0lh0] iobZ jokuk gksus laca/kh fjiksVZ ntZ dj vukf/kd`r :i ls fnukad 28-02-2021 rd xSjgkftj gksdj drZO; ds izfr ?kksj ykijokgh ,oa xSj ftEesnkjh iw.kZ d`R; dk izn'kZu dj e0iz0 iq0js0 ds iSjk 64¼2½ dk mYya?ku djukA 2- fnukad 11-02-2021 dks jf{kr dsUnz] iUuk esa jkf= dkyhu x.kuk ds nkSjku fnukad 12-02-2021 dks QkWyks xkMZ M~;wVh vknsf'kr fd;s tkus ij egRoiw.kZ M~;wVh ls vukf/kd`r :i ls vuqifLFkr jgdj drZO; ds izfr ?kksj ykijokgh ,oa xSj ftEesnkjh iw.kZ vkpj.k dk izn'kZu dj e0iz0 iq0js0 ds iSjk 64¼4½ dk mYya?ku djukA 3- fnukad 08-02-2021 dks jf{kr dsUnz] iUuk esa LFkkukUrj.k ij mifLFkfr nsus ds mijkar ls yxkrkj jf{kr dsUnz] iUuk dh jkf= dkyhu x.kuk ls vuqifLFkr jgdj drZO; ds izfr ?kksj ykijokgh ,oa xSj ftEesnkjh iw.kZ vkpj.k dk izn'kZu dj e0iz0 iq0js0 ds iSjk 64¼2½ dk mYya?ku djukA 4- ihfM+rk lqJh f'kokuh f}osnh] fu0 jhok }kjk izLrqr f'kdk;r dh tkWap ds nkSjku drZO; ls vukf/kd`r :i ls vuqifLFkr gksdj ftyk jhok esa lqJh f'kokuh f}osnh ,oa mlds ifjokj tuksa ls vHknzrk] ve;kZfnr O;ogkj djrs gq, mUgsa /kedh nsukA bl izdkj e0iz0 iqfyl jsxqys'ku ds iSjk 64¼2½] 64¼11½ dk mYya?ku djukA 5- fuyacu fnukad 13-02-2021 ds iwokZUg ls fcuk l{ke vf/kdkjh dh iwokZuqefr @ lwpuk ds eq[;ky; NksM+dj drZO; ds izfr ?kksj ykijokgh ,oa xSj ftEesnkjh iw.kZ vkpj.k dk izn'kZu dj e0iz0 iq0js0 ds iSjk 64¼2½ dk mYya?ku djukA

7. The charges contained in the criminal proceedings are as under:-

1& vkius fnukad 23-02-2019 ls yxkdj 20-05-2019 ds e/; ihfM+rk ds lkFk vius nksLr nhinRr ds ?kj cky Hkkjrh Ldwy ds ihNs jhok esa] gksVy dSyk'k jhok esa ¼rFkk blds ckn vkSj 6&7 ckj½ ,oa foa/; xsLV gkml jhok esa ihfM+rk dks cqykdj 'kknh dk >kalk nsdj mldh bPNk ds fo:) o lgefr ds fcuk tcnZLrh ckj&ckj v;qDr laHkksx dj cykRlax dkfjr fd;kA ,slk djds vkius og vijk/k fd;k tks Hkk-na-la- dh /kkjk 376¼2½¼,u½ ds varxZr n.Muh; vijk/k gS vkSj bl U;k;ky; ds laKku esa gSA 2& vkius fnukad 20-05-2020 dks foa/; xsLV gkml jhok vFkkZr~ yksd LFkku ij ihfM+rk dks v'yhy xkfy;ka nsdj mls o vU; lquus okysa O;fDr dks {kksHk dkfjr fd;k?

,slk djds vkius og vijk/k fd;k tks Hkk-na-la- dh /kkjk 294 ds varxZr n.Muh; vijk/k gS vkSj bl U;k;ky; ds laKku esa gSA 3& vkius fnukad 20-05-2020 dks foa/; xsLV gkml jhok esa ihfM+rk ds lkFk ekjihV dj LosPN;kiwoZd lk/kkj.k migfr dkfjr dhA ,slk djds vkius og vijk/k fd;k tks Hkk-na-la- dh /kkjk 323 ds varxZr n.Muh; vijk/k gS vkSj bl U;k;ky; ds laKku esa gSA WP No.22390-2021

4& vius fnukad 20-05-2020 dks ihfM+rk dks tku ls ekjus dh /kedh nsdj vkijkf/kd la=kl dkfjr fd;kA ,slk djds vkius og vijk/k fd;k tks Hkk-na-la- dh /kkjk 506 Hkkx&2 ds varxZr n.Muh; vijk/k gS vkSj bl U;k;ky; ds laKku esa gSA vr% eSa vkns'k nsrk gwa fd bl U;k;ky; ds }kjk vkidk fopkj.k fd;k tk;sA

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the charges are similar in criminal as well as disciplinary proceedings, the impugned order of suspension dated 13.02.2021 (Annexure P/1) and the charge-sheet dated 16.04.2021 (Annexure P/2) may be quashed.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/State submitted that if the charges in the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are compared, the same are not identical. The disciplinary proceeding is based on remaining unauthorizedly absent where as the criminal proceedings is based on the offence for rape. Therefore, it cannot be said that both the proceedings are identical and the witnesses are also different.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Depot Manager, A.P.State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Mohd. Yousuf Miya and others, (1997) 2 SCC 699 to contend that the purpose of departmental enquiry and prosecution are two different and distinct aspects. The criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of a duty, the offender owes to the society or for breach of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. So crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty; whereas the departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. Therefore, it would be expedient that the disciplinary proceedings may be conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible.

11. Learned counsel for the State further relied on the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.3622/2022 WP No.22390-2021

(Jaypal Singh Rathore and others Vs. The State of M.P. and others) and contended that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition in the light of the Apex Court judgment, therefore, maintaining parity, this writ petition also deserves to be dismissed.

12. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

13. The judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Capt.M.Paul Anthony (supra) would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the departmental proceedings cannot be stayed. As a consequence, challenge to Annexure P/1 dated 13.02.2021 and Annexure P/2 dated 16.04.2021 cannot be interfered with.

14. Accordingly, this petition being bereft of merit and substance is hereby dismissed.

15. No order as to cost.

(S.A.DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE

DPS Digitally signed by DHEERAJ PRATAP SINGH Date: 2022.03.31 16:38:24 +05'30'