Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajbir Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 4 December, 2023
Author: Vikas Bahl
Bench: Vikas Bahl
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154228
CWP-11203-2020 1 2023:PHHC:154228
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
1. CWP-11203-2020
Rajbir Singh and others
. . . Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
. . . Respondents
2. CWP-17535-2020
Satish Chander
. . . Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
. . . Respondents
Date of decision : 04.12.2023
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. Tara Chand Dhanwal, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG, Haryana.
***
VIKAS BAHL, J. (Oral)
1. This order will dispose of two writ petitions i.e., CWP-11203-
2020 filed by 4 petitioners namely Rajbir Singh, ASI; Sahab Singh, ESI;
Rajesh Kumar, ASI and Gurnam Singh, SI and CWP-17535-2020 filed by
Satish Chander, ASI as common issues of facts and law arise in both the
1 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154228
CWP-11203-2020 2 2023:PHHC:154228
petitions. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, CWP-
11203-2020 has been taken up as the lead case.
2. Prayer in CWP-11203-2020 is for issuance of a writ in the
nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 19.02.2020 and order
dated 07.03.2020 (Annexure P-4 and P-6 respectively) vide which
respondent No. 3-Superintendent of Police, Karnal has initiated
departmental proceedings, during the pendency of the criminal case in FIR
No. 84 dated 18.02.2020 under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-
B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66 of the Information Technology
Act, 2000, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal. A further prayer
has been made in the writ petition to keep departmental proceedings in
abeyance till the final decision of the criminal case.
3. Prayer in CWP-17535-2020 is for retraining the respondents
from continuing the departmental enquiry during the pendency of the trial
in FIR No. 84 dated 18.02.2020 under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471
and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66 of the Information
Technology Act, 2000, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal
4. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner Rajbir
Singh was appointed as Constable and thereafter, was promoted as
Assistant Sub Inspector in the year 2012 and was thereafter, posted as TA
Clerk, Accounts Branch, office of Superintendent of Police, Karnal.
Petitioner Sahab Singh also joined the Haryana Police as Constable and
was promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector and thereafter, was posted as
Cashier, Accounts Branch, Office of Superintendent of Police, Karnal.
2 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154228
CWP-11203-2020 3 2023:PHHC:154228
Petitioner Rajesh Kumar also joined as Constable and was promoted as
Assistant Sub Inspector in July, 2015 and was posted as OR's Pay Clerk,
Accounts Branch, Office of Superintendent of Police, Karnal. Petitioner
Gurnam Singh was also appointed as Constable and was subsequently
promoted as Sub Inspector on 01.07.2019 and was posted as Accountant,
Accounts Branch, Office of Superintendent of Police, Karnal. Petitioner
Satish Chander, who is sole petitioner in CWP-17535-2020 was appointed
as Constable and subsequently promoted as ASI on 10.07.2019 and was
posted at Accounts Branch, Karnal. On 18.02.2020, FIR No. 84 under
Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 66 of the I.T. Act 2000 was registered at Police Station Civil
Lines, Karnal after preliminary enquiry on the complaint made, in which it
was alleged that fake TA Bills have been prepared by the employees
and the same had been got deposited in various accounts and thereafter,
lakhs of rupees have been illegally withdrawn, thus, committing
misappropriation of huge funds of the State Government. All
the petitioners in both the writ petitions were found involved in
preparation of the said TA Bills and the misappropriation of the amount.
Departmental enquiries were also initiated against all the petitioners.
A perusal of the summary of allegations (Annexure P-7) against
petitioner SI Gurnam Singh and ASI Rajesh Kumar shows that while
Gurnam Singh was posted as Accounts Clerk in the Office of
Superintendent of Police, Karnal and petitioner ASI Rajesh Kumar was
posted as OR's Pay Clerk in the Accounts Branch, they had
3 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154228
CWP-11203-2020 4 2023:PHHC:154228
misappropriated the Government money by creating forged TA Bills and
educational allowances of the employees in the Accounts Branch, Office
of Superintendent of Police, Karnal. Similarly, vide summary of
allegations (Annexure P-5), it was alleged against petitioner Rajbir Singh
and petitioner Sahab Singh that while they were posted as TA Clerk and
Cashier respectively in the Accounts Branch, they had made forged TA
Bills and unique codes of private persons thereby grabbing the government
money. Dalbir Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police was appointed as
the Enquiry Officer. Even against Satish Chander (petitioner in CWP-
17535-2020), a perusal of the summary of charges (Annexure P-3 in CWP-
17535-2020) would show that he was also involved in the
misappropriation of funds while he was posted in the Accounts Branch,
Karnal. In the criminal proceedings, it is not disputed that the challan
against petitioners Rajbir Singh, Sahab Singh, Rajesh Kumar and Gurnam
Singh was filed on 18.05.2020 and thereafter, supplementary challan was
filed against Satish Chander on 20.09.2021 and there are 81 prosecution
witnesses in all. Neither the challan nor the supplementary challan have
been produced on record. The charges have not been framed and the case is
now fixed for framing of charges. Three witnesses have been examined in
the departmental proceedings against the petitioners in CWP-11203-2020
and five witnesses have been examined in the departmental proceedings
against Satish Chander who is the petitioner in CWP-17535-2020, and on
account of the interim orders passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court,
no further progress has been made in the same.
4 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154228
CWP-11203-2020 5 2023:PHHC:154228
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in both the writ petitions,
has submitted that as far as the departmental proceedings and the criminal
case in CWP-11203-2020 is concerned, there are six common witnesses
out of which three common witnesses have been examined and three
common witnesses are yet to be examined. With respect to the petitioner
Satish Chander in CWP-17535-2020, it has been submitted that there are
six common witnesses in the departmental proceedings and criminal case
and out of which, five common witnesses have been examined. Learned
counsel for the petitioners has prayed that the departmental proceedings be
kept in abeyance till the time all the common witnesses are examined in
the criminal case as in case, common witnesses are examined in the
departmental proceedings, then the petitioners would have to cross-
examine them and the defence of the petitioners would be disclosed and
the same would prejudice the case of the petitioners in the criminal
proceedings. In the criminal case, out of 15 witnesses, two witnesses have
been examined. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the
petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
case titled as "Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.",
report as 1999(3) SCC 679.
6. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the
present writ petition and has submitted that it is a matter of settled law that
criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings can proceed
simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously
though separately. It is contended that the interim orders have been
5 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154228
CWP-11203-2020 6 2023:PHHC:154228
continuing since the last more than 2 years and 10 months and the
Department cannot wait indefinitely till the time the criminal case is finally
adjudicated. It is further contended that neither the evidence in the criminal
case is to be relied in the departmental proceedings nor evidence in the
departmental proceedings is to be relied in the criminal case and thus, the
apprehension of the petitioners is misplaced. It is also submitted that in the
present case, the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has already been filed in
the criminal case and the statements of the witnesses under Section 161
Cr.P.C. have already been recorded and thus, the plea raised by the
petitioners to the effect that the State would improve their case after the
cross-examination of the common witnesses in the departmental
proceedings is also misconceived. It is also contended that no complicated
question of law and facts arise in the present case and thus, prays that the
present writ petition be dismissed and the interim order be vacated so as to
enable the Department to proceed with the departmental proceedings.
7. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has
perused the paper-book and finds that the present writ petition is meritless
and deserves to be dismissed for the reasons which have been detailed
hereinafter.
8. Before considering the facts of the present case, it would be
relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Capt.
M. Paul Anthony's case (supra), which has been relied upon by the
learned counsel for the petitioner. In the said judgment and also in various
other judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it has been repeatedly held
6 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154228
CWP-11203-2020 7 2023:PHHC:154228
that one of the necessary ingredients for the Court to consider before
staying departmental proceedings, with respect to the issue in hand, is
whether the case involves complicated questions of law and facts or not.
Paragraph 22 of the judgment in Capt. M. Paul Anthony's case (supra) is
reproduced hereinbelow:-
"22. The conclusions which are deducible from various
decisions of this Court referred to above are :
(i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a
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
the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent
employee 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 the criminal case.
(iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case
is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and
law are involved in that case, will depend upon the
nature of offence, the nature of the case launched
against the employee on the basis of evidence and
material collected against him during 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 the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly
delayed.
7 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154228
CWP-11203-2020 8 2023:PHHC:154228
(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 the pendency of
the 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."
A perusal of the above judgment would show that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court after considering various judgments had drawn the
conclusion which was given in the abovesaid paragraph. It was held that
the departmental proceedings and the proceedings in the criminal case can
proceed simultaneously as there was no bar in their being conducted
simultaneously. It was further held that departmental proceedings and
criminal proceedings if based on identical and similar set of facts and also
in case the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is
of grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, then
in such circumstances, it would be desirable to stay the departmental
proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. Thus, all the
ingredients i.e., averments/ allegations being identical, based on similar set
of facts and the charge being of grave nature involving complicated
questions of law and fact are required to be met so as to consider the case
of the employee for grant of stay. In sub clause (iii), reference has been
made that the evidence and the material collected during investigation or as
reflected in the charge sheet is to be taken into consideration for the
8 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154228
CWP-11203-2020 9 2023:PHHC:154228
purpose of considering as to whether the nature of charge in the criminal
case is grave in nature and complicated questions of law and fact are
involved in the case or not. Importantly, as per sub clause (iv) even in a
particular case where it is found that ingredients of sub clause (ii) and (iii)
do exist, even then the same cannot be considered in isolation, to stay the
departmental proceedings, but further regard has to be given to the fact that
the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. Sub clause (v)
specifically provides that if the criminal case does not proceed or its
disposal is being unduly delayed, then even in case stay has been granted,
with respect to the departmental proceedings, the same can be resumed and
proceeded with.
9. Similarly, in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in "Indian Overseas Bank, Anna Salai and Anr. vs. P.Ganesan and
others", reported as 2008(1) SCC 650 it had been specifically observed
that the High Court was apart from other considerations also required to
consider as to whether the matter involves complicated questions of law.
The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"11. Writ appeals preferred by the appellants against that
order were disposed of by a Division Bench of the Court by
reason of the impugned judgment opining :-
14. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the
criminal action and the disciplinary proceedings are
founded upon the same set of facts. In fact, the
disciplinary proceedings are solely based upon the
criminal complaint lodged by the president of a rival
union, who is also facing prosecution with regard to the
same incident. It has been conceded before us that the
9 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154228
CWP-11203-2020 10 2023:PHHC:154228
bank had not conducted any independent enquiry before
initiating the impugned departmental proceedings.
15. In our opinion, in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case on hand, fair play requires
that postponing of the departmental proceedings till the
criminal cases are decided. We are, therefore, of the
view that the prayer made by the petitioners for
deferring the departmental proceedings till the
conclusion of the criminal trial has to be accepted and
it is ordered accordingly.
xxx xxx xxx
18. Legal position operating in the field is no longer res
integra. A departmental proceedings pending a criminal
proceedings does not warrant an automatic stay. The superior
courts before exercising its discretionary jurisdiction in this
regard must take into consideration the fact as to whether the
charges as also the evidence in both the proceedings are
common and as to whether any complicated question of law
is involved in the matter.
xxx xxx xxx
22. The issue came up for consideration yet again in T.
Srinivas (supra) where this Court while analyzing B.K. Meena
(supra) and Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra) held that :-
"10. From the above, it is clear that the advisability,
desirability or propriety, as the case may be, in regard
to a departmental enquiry has to be determined in each
case taking into consideration all facts and
circumstances of the case. This judgment also lays
down that the stay of departmental proceedings cannot
be and should not be a matter of course."
23. The High Court, unfortunately, although it noticed some
of the binding precedents of the Court failed to apply the law
10 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154228
CWP-11203-2020 11 2023:PHHC:154228
in its proper perspective. The High Court was not correct in
its view in concluding that the stay of the departmental
proceedings should be granted in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case without analyzing and applying the
principle of law evolved in the aforementioned decisions. It,
therefore, misdirected itself in law. What was necessary to be
noticed by the High Court was not only existence of identical
facts and the evidence in the matter, it was also required to
take into consideration the question as to whether the charges
levelled against the delinquent officers, both in the criminal
case as also the disciplinary proceedings, were same.
Furthermore it was obligatory on the part of the High Court
to arrive at a finding that the non stay of the disciplinary
proceedings shall not only prejudice the delinquent officers
but the matter also the matter involves a complicated
question of law."
In the above-said case, the Hon'ble Division Bench of the
High Court had disposed of the appeals on the ground that there was no
dispute with respect to the fact that the criminal action and that the
disciplinary proceedings were founded on the same set of facts and that
disciplinary proceedings were solely based upon the criminal complaint
lodged by the President of a rival union and that the Bank had not
conducted any independent enquiry before initiating the impugned
departmental proceedings and thus, the departmental proceedings were
postponed till the time the criminal cases were decided. The said order was
set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by making the observations which
have been reproduced hereinabove.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Kendriya Vidyalaya
11 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154228
CWP-11203-2020 12 2023:PHHC:154228
Sangathan & Ors. Vs. T.Srinivas", reported as 2004(7) SCC 442, had
observed that there should be special facts in a case so as to persuade the
Court to stay departmental proceedings and every case where departmental
proceedings and criminal trial with regard to the same misconduct is
pending, is not to be stayed. It was also observed in the said judgment that
the approach and the objective of the criminal proceedings and the
disciplinary proceedings are altogether distinct and different inasmuch as
in the disciplinary proceedings, the question is whether the employee is
guilty of such conduct as would merit his removal from service or a lesser
punishment as the case may be, whereas in the criminal proceedings, the
question is whether the offences which the employee is alleged to have
committed, are established or not, and if so established the sentence to be
imposed. It was further observed that the standard of proof, the mode of
enquiry and the rules governing the enquiry and the trial in both the cases
are distinct and different. In the said case, the Tribunal had come to the
conclusion that two articles of charge in the criminal proceedings and the
departmental proceedings were identical and the third charge was inter
connected and accordingly, the Tribunal had stayed the departmental
proceedings till the time the applicant therein disclosed his defence in the
criminal trial. The writ petition against the said order was also dismissed
and the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the law on the point, set
aside the said orders and observed that the Tribunal and the High Court
had proceeded on an erroneous principle to the effect that grant of stay of
disciplinary proceedings is a must in every case where there is a criminal
12 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154228
CWP-11203-2020 13 2023:PHHC:154228
trial on the same charges. The relevant portion of the said judgment is
reproduced hereinbelow:-
4. The respondent herein challenged the said decision of
the appellants to hold a departmental enquiry while a
criminal trial on identical facts was pending against him
before a competent court. This challenge was made before the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at
Hyderabad. The tribunal by its order dated 2.7.2003 came to
the conclusion that the first two Articles of charges are
identical to the charge levelled against the petitioner before
the special court under the provisions of the Prevention of
Corruption Act and the third Article of charge though not a
subject matter of the trial is an inter-connected charge with
charges 1 and 2, hence it allowed the application of the
respondent and directed the appellant that proceedings
pursuant to the charge memo be stayed till the applicant
discloses his defence in the pending criminal trial. It, however
gave permission to the appellant to proceed with the
disciplinary proceedings after the disclosure of the defence by
the respondent which in effect would mean that the
disciplinary proceedings will stand stayed almost till the
disposal of the trial before the criminal court.
xxx xxx xxx
11. In the instant case, from the order of the tribunal as
also from the impugned order of the High Court, we do not
find that the two forums below have considered the special
facts of this case which persuaded them to stay the
departmental proceedings. On the contrary, reading of the
two impugned orders indicates that both the tribunal and the
High Court proceeded as if a departmental enquiry had to be
stayed in every case where a criminal trial in regard to the
13 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154228
CWP-11203-2020 14 2023:PHHC:154228
same misconduct is pending. Neither the tribunal nor the High
Court did take into consideration the seriousness of the
charge which pertains to acceptance of illegal gratification
and the desirability of continuing the appellant in service
inspite of such serious charges levelled against him. This
Court in the said case of State of Rajasthan (supra) has
further observed that the approach and the objective in the
criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings is
altogether distinct and different. It held that in the
disciplinary proceedings the question is whether the
respondent is guilty of such conduct as would merit his
removal from service or a lesser punishment, as the case may
be, whereas in the criminal proceedings the question is
whether the offences registered against him are established
and, if established, what sentence should be imposed upon
him. The court in the above case further noted that the
standard of proof, the mode of enquiry and the rules
governing the enquiry and trial in both the cases are distinct
and different. On that basis, in the case of State of Rajasthan
the facts which seems to be almost similar to the facts of this
case held that the tribunal fell in error in staying the
disciplinary proceedings.
xxx xxx xxx
14. We are of the opinion that both the tribunal and the
High Court proceeded on an erroneous legal principle
without taking into consideration the facts and circumstances
of this case and proceeded as if the stay of disciplinary
proceedings is a must in every case where there is a criminal
trial on the very same charges......"
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "State Bank of India and Ors.
vs. Neelam Nag and Anr., reported as 2016(9) SCC 491, had observed as
under:-
14 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154228
CWP-11203-2020 15 2023:PHHC:154228
"13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties
at some length. The only question that arises for
consideration, is no more res-integra. It is well-settled that
there is no legal bar to the conduct of the disciplinary
proceedings and criminal trial simultaneously. However, no
straight jacket formula can be spelt out and the Court has to
keep in mind the broad approach to be adopted in such
matters on case to case basis. The contour of the approach to
be adopted by the Court has been delineated in a series of
decisions.
14. This Court in Karnataka SRTC vs. M.G.Vittal Rao
(2012) 1 SCC 442 has summed up the same in the following
words:
"(i) There is no legal bar for both the
proceedings to go on simultaneously.
(ii) The only valid ground for claiming that the
disciplinary proceedings may be stayed would be
to ensure that the defence of the employee in the
criminal case may not be prejudiced. But even
such grounds would be available only in cases
involving complex questions of facts or law.
(iii) Such defence ought not to be permitted to
unnecessarily delay the departmental
proceedings. The interest of the delinquent officer
as well as the employer clearly lies in a prompt
conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.
(iv) Departmental proceedings can go on
simultaneously to the criminal trial, except where
both the proceedings are based on the same set of
facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is
common.
(emphasis supplied)"
In the above judgment, apart from reiterating the fact that it is
a matter of settled law that there is no legal bar on conducting the
disciplinary proceedings and criminal trial simultaneously, reliance was
also placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karnataka
15 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154228
CWP-11203-2020 16 2023:PHHC:154228
SRTC vs. M.G. Vittal Rao, in which it was observed that the ground for
seeking stay would be available only in cases involving complex questions
of law and facts and where the departmental proceedings were not being
unnecessarily delayed.
Thus, a perusal of the above said judgments would show that
apart from other factors, one of the primary factors which the Court is to
consider before even considering as to whether the stay of departmental
proceedings is to be granted in a particular case or not or as to whether the
evidence of the witnesses in the departmental proceedings is to be kept in
abeyance till their examination in the criminal case, is to see as to whether
complicated questions of law and facts are involved in the case or not. In
the present case, no complicated question of law or facts, has been brought
to the notice of this Court. The issue which arises for consideration in the
present case is as to whether the present petitioners in collusion with each
other have prepared fake TA Bills and have misappropriated the
government funds. In the said circumstances, it cannot be said that any
complicated question of law or fact arises. Moreover, no judgment has
been cited before this Court to show that in such a situation complicated
question of law or fact would arise. Moreover, this Court has found that
there are no special facts in the present case so as to persuade this Court to
grant the relief sought, rather the allegations against the petitioners are that
they have in collusion with each other misappropriated the government
funds by preparing fake TA Bills etc. Even the argument of learned
counsel for the petitioners to the effect that in case common witnesses are
16 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154228
CWP-11203-2020 17 2023:PHHC:154228
examined then prejudice would be caused to the case of the petitioners, is
also misconceived inasmuch as in the present case, the report under
Section 173 Cr.P.C. has already been submitted and the statements of all
the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have already been recorded and a
copy of the same has been given to the accused and the prosecution in
order to prove the guilt, would have to rely upon the statements recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and
thus, the question of prejudice does not arise. At any rate, as has been held
above, there is no complicated question of law and facts involved in the
present case.
12. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in "Dr.Balwinder
Kumar Sharma vs. Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court through
Registrar General, CWP-7539-2021, decided on 28.05.2021 has held as
under:-
"The reason for initiation and early conclusion of
departmental proceedings in such cases seems to be three-
fold:
(i) To weed out an employee whose integrity /
character has been put to doubt, prima facie, on
account of some criminal proceedings having been
initiated against him/her.
(ii) At the same time, when an employee is
suspended, he/she is entitled to atleast half of the
pay that it was drawing before being suspended
and thus, any inordinate delay in conclusion of
departmental proceedings, where charges are of
very serious nature, would unnecessarily entail
burden on exchequer and thus will be against
17 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154228
CWP-11203-2020 18 2023:PHHC:154228
public interest.
(iii) The departmental proceedings is to maintain
discipline in the service and efficiency of public
service and thus, its initiation and conclusion as
expeditiously as possible is in public interest.
In the present case, it is not disputed that challan was
presented in the year 2019 and charges were framed on
31.01.2020 (P-11), however till date no progress has been
made in the criminal trial on account of one reason or the
other. Although, the delay in criminal trial cannot be
attributed to the petitioner, at the same time, the department
cannot be expected to wait endlessly for the trial to conclude
as held in Capt. M. Paul Anthony's case (supra).
xxx xxx xxx
Further, it is to be noted that charges under Sections
409, 420, 120-B and 201 IPC have been framed on the basis
of documentary and other evidence collected by the SIT
during the course of investigation. How the paper was leaked
and the manner it was further supplied for prosecution /
Department to prove, which otherwise is within the special
knowledge of the accused. Therefore, there is no question of
any disclosure of defence in the departmental proceedings. As
far as the various provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 are concerned, most of the provisions are to be proved
by the prosecution during the course of trial except the one
concerning "known sources of income", which again is within
the special knowledge of accused-petitioner. Hence, there
seems to be no justification in the prayer made by petitioner
for staying of disciplinary proceedings."
In the abovesaid judgment, the reasons for early conclusion of
departmental proceedings have been highlighted and it has been further
18 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154228
CWP-11203-2020 19 2023:PHHC:154228
observed that the department cannot wait endlessly for the criminal trial to
conclude irrespective of the fact that the delay in the criminal trial is
attributed to the employee or not. It is further observed in the said case that
an early conclusion of the departmental proceedings was necessary in order
to weed out an employee whose integrity / character has been put to doubt
on account of initiation of criminal proceedings and since the purpose of
the said proceedings is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency
of public service. It was also observed that during the pendency of the said
proceedings, since the employee is suspended, thus, the said employee
would get some part of pay without doing work which would amount to
unnecessarily entailing burden on the exchequer and would be against
public interest.
13. The law laid down in the abovesaid judgment would also fully
apply to the case at hand. In the present set of writ petitions, the
departmental proceedings were initiated in the year 2020 and inspite of a
lapse of 3 years, the same have not been concluded on account of the
interim orders passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court. In such a
situation, it would not be in the interest of justice to keep the departmental
proceedings pending any further. It would also be relevant to note that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Capt. M.Paul Anthony
(supra), which has been relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner,
has in paragraph 22 sub clause (v), which has been reproduced
hereinabove, observed that in case the criminal case does not proceed, then
departmental proceedings, even if they have been stayed on account of the
19 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154228
CWP-11203-2020 20 2023:PHHC:154228
pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to
be concluded at an early date and the same would be in the interest of all,
inasmuch as in case the petitioners are found guilty, then the department
should get rid of them as early as possible and in case they are not guilty
then the honour of the petitioners should be vindicated at the earliest as
well.
14. Keeping in view the above said facts & circumstances and the
law laid down in the above-said judgments, both the present writ petitions
deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.
(VIKAS BAHL)
04.12.2023 JUDGE
Mehak/Davinder Kumar
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154228
20 of 20
