Suresh Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 11893 P&H

116
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

                                                          CWP-21714-2022 (O&M)
                                               Date of decision: September 21, 2022

Suresh Kumar
                                                                       ....Petitioner
                                       versus
State of Haryana and another
                                                                    ....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Present:     Mr. Vikas Kuthiala, Advocate for the petitioner.

             Mr. Pankaj Middha, Additional AG Haryana.

                                       *****
ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)

Petition herein, inter alia, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of

Certiorari for quashing charge-sheet dated 13.07.2022 (Annexure P-5) and all

subsequent proceedings arising out of it allegedly being illegal and

motivated.

2. Learned counsel relies on Supreme Court judgment rendered in

Capt. M. Paul Anthony versus Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. reported in 1999

(2) S.C.T. 660. Based on substantially the same set of charges, simultaneous

criminal as well as Departmental proceedings have been initiated against the

petitioner. He submits that not only the documentary evidence, even the

witnesses, whose statements are to be recorded in course of adducing

evidence, are same in both the proceedings. Therefore, the defense of the

petitioner would be severely jeopardize, in case he is made to adduce his

evidence in departmental proceedings before the same is done in the criminal

proceedings.

1 of 2

3. Notice of motion.

4. On advance service, learned State counsel appears and opposes

the petitionand states that it is a settled position in law that simultaneous

proceedings may continue.

5. Having heard the competing contentions, I am of the view that no

grounds are made out for granting any stay on the pending departmental

proceedings. In fact, granting stay on the departmental proceedings may be

collaterally more harmful for the petitioner, since he would continue to be

suspended from service during pendency thereof.

6. In the premise, writ petition is disposed of, with the limited

interference to the extent that the departmental proceedings shall though

continue, but petitioner shall not be forced to produce those witnesses, whom

he is under advise to rely even in the criminal proceedings. While the

Department, at the same time, shall be at liberty to record its evidence.

Likewise, petitioner shall also adduce his limited evidence, which is not to be

relied upon by him in the criminal proceedings.

                                                    (ARUN MONGA)
                                                        JUDGE
September 21, 2022
mahavir

Whether speaking/reasoned:            Yes/No

Whether reportable:                   Yes/No




                                     2 of 2