Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mahesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 29 November, 2023
Author: Vikas Bahl
Bench: Vikas Bahl
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:151751
CWP-25306-2023 -1- 2023:PHHC:151751
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(271)
CWP-25306-2023
Date of Decision: - 29.11.2023
Mahesh Kumar
....Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. Suresh Kumar Redhu, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Rajni Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
***
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a Civil Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to
quash the order No.31710-16 dated 08.05.2023 (Annexure P-2) vide which
the Superintendent of Police, Jind has initiated the departmental enquiry
regarding which FIR No.13 dated 05.05.2023 under Sections 7, 13(1)(b),
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 389 of IPC, at Police
Station ACB, Karnal has been registered. Challenge is also made to the
summary of allegations dated 18.10.2023 (Annexure P-4).
2. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner was
recruited as a Constable in the Police Department on 08.12.1988 and was
working as officiating Sub Inspector since 30.12.2020 and an FIR bearing
No.13 dated 05.05.2023 under Sections 7, 13(1)(b), 13(2) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, Karnal was
1 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:151751
CWP-25306-2023 -2- 2023:PHHC:151751
registered against the petitioner on the complaint of Malkhan who had
alleged that he had received a call from the present petitioner using mobile
phone No. 94169-38058 from Police Station Julana and had been informed
that his cousin Gaurav had taken his motorcycle and abducted a girl from
village Nidana and the petitioner asked the complainant to take the
motorcycle from the Police Station and after a week from the said call, the
complainant took his motorcycle and met the petitioner in the Police
Station. It is further alleged that the petitioner demanded bribe of
Rs.20,000/- from the complainant and threatened the complainant that in
case he does not pay the said amount then he would implicate the said
complainant-Malkhan in the case involving the girl's abduction and in case
the said bribe is paid by him, then, he would release him and his motorcycle
from the case and that thereafter the complainant gave Rs.4,000/- which was
taken by the petitioner on the same day and the petitioner again asked the
complainant to further bring an amount of Rs.15,000. It had also been
alleged that on 04.05.2023, the petitioner again called the complainant and
took Rs.2000/- from him and then told him further to bring Rs.10,000/- for
the release of his motorcycle and the said conversation was recorded by the
complainant and it was stated by the complainant that he was ready to
produce the said conversation. It has been alleged in the FIR that the
complainant did not want to further give Rs.10,000/- bribe to the petitioner
and thus, he made a complaint to the Anti Corruption Bureau and in
pursuance of the same, a raid was conducted by the Anti Corruption Bureau
and the petitioner was apprehended red-handed while accepting the bribe of
Rs.10,000/- from the complainant. Although, the challan under Section 173
Cr.P.C. has been presented in the criminal case but a complete copy of the
2 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:151751
CWP-25306-2023 -3- 2023:PHHC:151751
same has not been annexed with the present petition, however, the fact that
the petitioner was apprehended while accepting the bribe amount of
Rs.10,000/- as per the case of the prosecution, is clear from para No.5 of the
order dated 12.09.2023 (Annexure P-3) passed by a Coordinate Bench of
this Court while granting interim bail to the petitioner which was
subsequently confirmed vide order dated 19.09.2023. Departmental
proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and vide order dated
08.05.2023, the petitioner was suspended and thereafter, vide order dated
18.10.2023 (Annexure P-4), the summary of allegations were given to the
petitioner, in which, the aspect of the petitioner having been caught red-
handed while accepting bribe of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant-Malkhan
was specifically noticed.
3. Learned State counsel vide order dated 28.11.2023 was
directed to get instructions with respect to the stage of the departmental
proceedings as well as the criminal proceedings and in pursuance of the
same, learned State counsel has submitted that out of 04 witnesses in the
departmental proceedings, 03 witnesses have already been examined and in
the criminal case, the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the
present case, there are two common witnesses in both the departmental
enquiry and the criminal proceedings, which are Mohrar Police Station,
Anti Corruption Bureau, Karnal and Mohrar Police Station, Julana, District
Jind, who were stated to be at serial No.3 and 4 in the list of witnesses in the
departmental proceedings (Page 26) and at Sr. No.10 and 7 in the list of
criminal case (Annexure P-5) (Page 27). It is submitted by learned counsel
for the petitioner that the said two witnesses be not examined till the time
3 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:151751
CWP-25306-2023 -4- 2023:PHHC:151751
their examination in the criminal case is not concluded as, in case, they are
examined in the departmental proceedings prior to their examination in the
criminal case, then, the same would cause prejudice to the case of the
petitioner and the defence of the petitioner to be taken in the criminal case
would be disclosed while cross-examining the said witnesses in the
departmental proceedings. In support of the said argument, 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.",
reported as 1999(3) SCC 679. Further, a reference has been made to the
judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP-18005-2019
titled as 'Ravinder and others Vs. State of Haryana and others' dated
08.07.2019, in support of the said arguments. Reliance has also been placed
upon an interim order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in
CWP-16920-2022 titled as "Vikram Singh Vs. State of Haryana and
others" which order has been annexed as Annexure P-6 along with the
present petition, in which case, after placing reliance upon the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony case (supra) and
also upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "State Bank of
India and others Vs. Neelam Nag and Another" reported as 2016(9) SCC
491, interim order has been passed in favour of petitioner therein.
5. 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.
6. 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.
4 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:151751
CWP-25306-2023 -5- 2023:PHHC:151751
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 that
one of the necessary ingredients for the Court to bear in mind before staying
the departmental proceeding, with respect to the issue in hand, is as to
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.
(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
5 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:151751
CWP-25306-2023 -6- 2023:PHHC:151751
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, on the aspect in
question, had drawn the conclusion which was given in the above
reproduced paragraph. It was held that the departmental proceedings and the
proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar
in them 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
the investigation or as reflected in the charge sheet is to be taken into
consideration for the 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 consideration 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
6 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:151751
CWP-25306-2023 -7- 2023:PHHC:151751
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.
7. Similarly, in a 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, apart from other considerations, was also required to
consider as to whether the matter involves complicated questions of law and
facts or not. 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 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
7 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:151751
CWP-25306-2023 -8- 2023:PHHC:151751
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 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
regarding the fact that the criminal action and 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
8 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:151751
CWP-25306-2023 -9- 2023:PHHC:151751
were decided. The said order was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
by making the observations which have been reproduced hereinabove.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Kendriya Vidyalaya
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 as to whether the respondent is
guilty of such conduct which would merit his removal from service or a
lesser punishment as the case may be, whereas in the criminal proceedings,
the question is as to 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 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
9 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:151751
CWP-25306-2023 -10- 2023:PHHC:151751
disciplinary proceedings is a must in every case where there is a criminal
trial on the same set of 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 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
10 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:151751
CWP-25306-2023 -11- 2023:PHHC:151751
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......"
9. 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:-
"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.
11 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:151751
CWP-25306-2023 -12- 2023:PHHC:151751
(emphasis supplied)"
In the above reproduced 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
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 has to consider before even considering as to whether 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, 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.
10. The issue in the present case is as to whether the petitioner had
sought bribe of Rs.20,000/- from the complainant-Malkhan for releasing the
motorcycle of the complainant on which the complainant's cousin had
allegedly abducted a girl and as to whether the raiding party had caught the
petitioner red-handed while accepting a bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- from
the said complainant-Malkhan. 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. As has been brought to the notice of this
12 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:151751
CWP-25306-2023 -13- 2023:PHHC:151751
Court by learned State counsel that out of 04 departmental witnesses, 03
departmental witnesses have already been examined. The said aspect has
not been denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Even on a
comparison between the list of witnesses in the departmental proceedings
(Page-26) and the list of witnesses in the criminal case dated 07.06.2023
(Annexure P-5), it cannot be stated with certainty that the Head Constable
Rajesh Kumar and Mohrar ASI Surender Kumar are the same persons who
are mentioned at serial No.3 and 4 in the departmental proceedings. Learned
counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that it is Mohrar Police Station
Julana District, Jind which is at serial No.4 in the list of witness of
departmental witnesses, who as per his instructions, is the common
witnesses and has been examined in the departmental proceedings. At any
rate, there is no complicated question of law or fact involved in the present
case as has been detailed hereinabove. 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 allegations in the present case are that the
petitioner was demanding bribe of Rs.20,000/- and was caught red-handed
while accepting bribe of Rs.10,000/- as per the case of the prosecution.
11. Before parting, it would be relevant to make a note of the
judgments of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court which are relevant
in the present case.
12. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in LPA-239-2022
titled as "Paramjit Kaur Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank and others" decided
on 24.03.2022 had held as under:-
"2. The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the facts
of the case as well as the decision of the Supreme Court, relied upon by
13 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:151751
CWP-25306-2023 -14- 2023:PHHC:151751
the appellant, in Captain M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines,
1999(3) SCC 679, dismissed her petition, upon reaching a conclusion that
decision in Captain M. Paul Anthony (supra) does not lay down any
absolute principle of law that in all those cases where a criminal trial is
pending, the departmental proceedings must be kept in abeyance. Rather,
the question, whether, in the given situation, the departmental proceedings
are required to be stayed, would be determined taking into account
multiple factors: if the departmental proceedings and criminal trial are
based on similar set of facts; the charge in the criminal trial against the
delinquent employee is of a grave nature and involved complicated
questions of law and fact. Whereas, upon due consideration of the matter
in issue, the learned Single Judge recorded that it was not the case in the
matter at hands. It was observed that the charges against the appellant in
the departmental proceedings were that she had been siphoning off the
funds/amount from the accounts of the bank's customers in the name of
her own relatives since 2005. Further, upon being confronted with this
fact, she has made three deposits refunding certain amount. And,
significantly, the learned Single Judge also recorded that the entire
material that was to be relied upon and produced against the appellant
was documentary in nature and was either prepared by her or under her
supervision, being Manager of the branch.
xxx xxx xxx
5. Upon being pointedly asked, if the charges have been framed in the
criminal trial against the appellant and, if yes, whether the charge sheet
was produced/placed before the learned Single Judge? Learned counsel
fairly concedes that though charges have already been framed but the
charge sheet was not placed before the learned Single Judge. In such
circumstances, it is evident that the contention of the appellant that basis
of the departmental proceedings and criminal trial is the same, is neither
substantiated nor established. Even otherwise, as indicated above, the
charges against the appellant are based on record and do not involve any
complicated questions of law and facts, least a charge that could be
termed as grave."
A perusal of the above judgment would show that the
charges/charge sheet in the criminal case were not placed before the learned
Single Judge and that thus, the contention of the appellant therein that the
basis of the departmental proceedings and criminal trial were the same, was
14 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:151751
CWP-25306-2023 -15- 2023:PHHC:151751
neither substantiated nor established. It was also observed that in the said
circumstances, no complicated question of law and facts arose.
13. In the present case, as stated herein above, the charges have
been framed, as informed by learned State counsel, but since it is not on
record, the principle of law as laid down in the above-said judgments would
also apply in the present case.
14. 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 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
15 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:151751
CWP-25306-2023 -16- 2023:PHHC:151751
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 observed
that the cases registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are to
be proved by the prosecution during the course of trial and thus, there is no
justification for staying the disciplinary proceedings. The SLP i.e., SLP
no.8279 of 2021 filed against the said judgment was dismissed as
withdrawn on 17.10.2022.
15. Reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner upon the
interim order dated 03.08.2022 (Annexure P-6) would not further the case
of the petitioner as the same is an interim order and at any rate, the said
order also referred to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Capt.
M. Paul Anthony case (supra) as well as Neelam Nag's case (supra) and
both the said judgments have been considered in extenso by this Court in
the present order. Reliance placed upon order passed by a Coordinate Bench
of this Court in Ravinder's case (supra) would also not further the case of
the petitioner as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as of
the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, which have been considered and
16 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:151751
CWP-25306-2023 -17- 2023:PHHC:151751
reproduced hereinabove, have not been considered in the said judgment.
Moreover, it would be relevant to note that this Court in the case of "Anand
Bakshi Vs. State of Haryana and others" in CWP-26062-2023, decided on
20.11.2023 had taken a similar view as has been taken in this case.
16. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts & circumstances and the
law laid down in the above-said judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, the present writ petition
deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
(VIKAS BAHL)
November 29, 2023. JUDGE
naresh.k/jatin
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes
Whether reportable No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:151751
17 of 17
