Punjab-Haryana High Court

Mustaq vs State Of Haryana And Others on 10 April, 2024

Author: Vikas Bahl

Bench: Vikas Bahl

                                 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050360




CWP-5111-2024
and other connected cases                  -1-        2024:PHHC:050360


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

1.                                         CWP-5111-2024


MUSTAQ                                                      .....PETITIONER
                                          V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                                ....RESPONDENTS


2.                                         CWP-1801-2024


SUMIT KUMAR                                                 .....PETITIONER
                                          V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                                ....RESPONDENTS


3.                                         CMs-5332-5333-CWP-2024 in/and
                                           CWP-14310-2022 (O&M)
ANIL KUMAR                                                  .....PETITIONER
                                          V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                                ....RESPONDENTS


4.                                         CWP-228-2024


PAWAN KUMAR                                                 .....PETITIONER
                                          V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                                ....RESPONDENTS


5.                                         CWP-27404-2023


RAKESH                                                      .....PETITIONER
                                          V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS                                   ....RESPONDENTS




                               1 of 163
             ::: Downloaded on - 16-04-2024 21:39:58 :::
                                  Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050360




CWP-5111-2024
and other connected cases                  -2-        2024:PHHC:050360


6.                                         CWP-5898-2021


VIKAS                                                       .....PETITIONER
                                          V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS                                   ....RESPONDENTS
7.                                         CWP-11379-2021
FATEH SINGH                                                 .....PETITIONER
                                          V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                                ....RESPONDENTS


8.                                         CWP-1987-2021


RAKESH KUMAR                                                .....PETITIONER
                                          V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS                                   ....RESPONDENTS


9.                                         CWP-2733-2024


SUNDER SINGH                                                .....PETITIONER
                                          V/S
THE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                            ....RESPONDENTS


10.                                        CWP-21555-2023


RAM PARKASH KARDAM                                          .....PETITIONER
                                          V/S
DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM AND OTHERS
                                                           ....RESPONDENTS
11.                                        CWP-21362-2023


JILE SINGH                                            .....PETITIONER
                                          V/S
DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM AND OTHERS


                               2 of 163
             ::: Downloaded on - 16-04-2024 21:39:58 :::
                                  Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050360




CWP-5111-2024
and other connected cases                  -3-        2024:PHHC:050360


                                                           ....RESPONDENTS


12.                                        CWP-11150-2021
RAJBIR                                                      .....PETITIONER
                                          V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                                ....RESPONDENTS

13.                                        CWP-5296-2023

RAJENDER SINGH                                              .....PETITIONER

                                          V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                                ....RESPONDENTS

14.                                        CWP-10861-2023
DHARM PAL                                                   .....PETITIONER
                                          V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                                ....RESPONDENTS


15.                                        CWP-19392-2023


NARENDER KUMAR                                              .....PETITIONER
                                          V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                                ....RESPONDENTS


16.                                        CWP-23025-2023


SANJAY KUMAR                                                .....PETITIONER
                                          V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                                ....RESPONDENTS


17.                                        CWP-24857-2023


GURMEET SINGH                                               .....PETITIONER
                                          V/S



                               3 of 163
             ::: Downloaded on - 16-04-2024 21:39:58 :::
                                  Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050360




CWP-5111-2024
and other connected cases                  -4-        2024:PHHC:050360


STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                                ....RESPONDENTS



18.                                        CWP-327-2024 (O&M)

SHRI BHAGWAN                                                .....PETITIONER

                                          V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                                ....RESPONDENTS

19.                                        CWP-1805-2024
HANSRAJ                                                     .....PETITIONER
                                          V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS                                   ....RESPONDENTS


20.                                        CWP-1879-2024
MAHESH KUMAR                                                .....PETITIONER


                                          V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS                                   ....RESPONDENTS


21.                                        CWP-5728-2023


AJAY SINGH                                                  .....PETITIONER
                                          V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                                ....RESPONDENTS


22.                                        CWP-7537-2021
PRAVEEN                                                     .....PETITIONER
                                          V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                                ....RESPONDENTS
23.                                        CWP-6939-2021
NAVEEN                                                .....PETITIONER
                                          V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                                ....RESPONDENTS


                               4 of 163
             ::: Downloaded on - 16-04-2024 21:39:58 :::
                                  Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050360




CWP-5111-2024
and other connected cases                  -5-        2024:PHHC:050360


24.                                        CWP-17247-2022


PUNAM                                                       .....PETITIONER
                                          V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER                               ....RESPONDENTS
25.                                        CWP-1940-2024


LAL CHAND                                                   .....PETITIONER
                                          V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                           ...RESPONDENTS
26.                                        CWP-4914-2024
HARPAL SINGH                                                .....PETITIONER
                                          V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                                ....RESPONDENTS
27.                                        CWP-5666-2024
BALWINDER SINGH                                             .....PETITIONER
                                          V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                                ....RESPONDENTS
28.                                        CWP-6829-2023
DARSHAN SINGH                                               .....PETITIONER
                                          V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                                ....RESPONDENTS
29.                                        CWP-14500-2023
SUBHASH CHAND                                               .....PETITIONER
                                          V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                                ....RESPONDENTS
30.                                        CWP-5709-2024
SURENDER                                                    .....PETITIONER
                                          V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                                ....RESPONDENTS
31.                                        CWP-21413-2022
SUNITA                                                .....PETITIONER
                                          V/S


                               5 of 163
             ::: Downloaded on - 16-04-2024 21:39:58 :::
                                  Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050360




CWP-5111-2024
and other connected cases                  -6-        2024:PHHC:050360


STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                                ....RESPONDENTS

32.                                        CWP-7783-2024
HARI OM                                               .....PETITIONER
                                          V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                                ....RESPONDENTS

33.                                        CWP-10130-2023
BHAL SINGH                                                  .....PETITIONER
                                          V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                                ....RESPONDENTS

34.                                        CWP-9439-2023
PRATIBHA                                                    .....PETITIONER
                                          V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                                ....RESPONDENTS
35.                                        CWP-8095-2024
SUDHIR KUMAR                                                .....PETITIONER
                                          V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                                ....RESPONDENTS
                                                 Date of Decision: - 10.04.2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

Present:      Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Senior Advocate, with
              Mr. Vishal Pundir, Advocate, and
              Ms. Pooja Sareen, Advocate;
              Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Sr. Advocate with
              Mr. Ankit Yadav, Advocate
              Mr. Amit Bansal, Advocate
              Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate
              Mr. Rahul Gautam, Advocate and
              Mr. Pankaj Nanhera, Advocate and
              Mr. Sanjeev Majra, Advocate and
              Ms. Anjali Sheoran, Advocate
              Mr. Rajat Mor, Advocate;
              Mr. Aditya Yadav, Advocate;
              Mr. Amandeep Rana, Advocate;
              Mr. Ankur Lal, Advocate;
              Mr. Satish Saini, Advocate;
              Mr. Dinesh Saini, Advocate;


                               6 of 163
             ::: Downloaded on - 16-04-2024 21:39:58 :::
                                    Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050360




CWP-5111-2024
and other connected cases                   -7-         2024:PHHC:050360


              Ms. Sehaj Sandhawalia, Advocate;
              Mr. Jivesh Malik, Advocate, for
              Mr. Manvender Dalal, Advocate;
              Ms. Shweta Bawa, Advocate;
              Mr. Manoj Kumar Sood, Advocate,
              Mr. P.S. Jammu, Advocate
              Mr. Pragyat Bhardwaj, Advocate
              for the petitioner(s).

              Ms. Rajni Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana,
              Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana,
              Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG, Haryana, and
              Mr. Amandeep Joshi, DAG, Haryana.

              Mr. Satyam Tandon, Advocate, and
              Ms. Nisha Kanojia, Advocate, for the respondents
              in CWP-21555-2023 and CWP-21362-2023.

              ****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present order shall dispose of a bunch of 35 writ petitions as

common issue(s) of facts and law arise in all the said cases.

2. This judgment has been divided into the following sections: -

1. Issue to be determined and the common argument of all the learned Para 3 counsel for the petitioners. Page 8

2. Relevant judgments on the issue in question Para 5 Page 9 2(i) Para No. 22 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Para 5 titled as "Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.", Page 10 reported as 1999(3) SCC 679 2(ii) Relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 6 "Indian Overseas Bank, Anna Salai and Anr. vs. P.Ganesan and Page 12 others", reported as 2008(1) SCC 650 2(iii) Relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 7 "Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors. Vs. T.Srinivas", reported Page 15 as 2004(7) SCC 442 2(iv) Relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 8 "State Bank of India and Ors. vs. Neelam Nag and Anr., reported Page 17 as 2016(9) SCC 491

7 of 163

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050360

CWP-5111-2024 and other connected cases -8- 2024:PHHC:050360

2(v) Relevant portion of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Para 10 Court in LPA No.470-2024 titled as "Ravi Kumar Vs. State of Page 19 Haryana and others" dismissing the appeal filed against the judgment dated 16.01.2024 passed by this Court in a case involving the same issue as in the present bunch of writ petitions.

2(vi) Relevant portion of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Para 12 Court in LPA-252-2021, decided on 23.07.2021 titled as "L/ASI Page 22 Seema Vs. State of Haryana and others" dealing with the same issue as raised in the present bunch of writ petitions and SLP against which has been dismissed.

2(vii) Relevant portion of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Para 14 Court in "Dr.Balwinder Kumar Sharma vs. Hon'ble Punjab and Page 26 Haryana High Court through Registrar General, CWP-7539- 2021, decided on 28.05.2021, SLP against which has been withdrawn.

2(viii) Relevant portion of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Para 16 Court in LPA-239-2022 titled as "Paramjit Kaur Vs. Punjab and Page 28 Sind Bank and others" decided on 24.03.2022

3. Nine principles/conclusions which emerge from the above said Para 17 judgments crystallized Page 30

4. Decision in individual cases after applying the law laid down in the Paras 19 abovesaid judgments and the abovementioned to 198 principles/conclusions. Page 33 to 163

3. The primary issue which arises for consideration in all the

above-said writ petitions is as to "whether the regular departmental

proceedings are required to be stayed or the examination of the common

witnesses is required to be deferred till the culmination of the criminal

proceedings or till the said common witnesses are examined in the criminal

proceedings, which criminal proceedings as per the case of the petitioners,

relate to the same incident, on account of which departmental proceedings

have been initiated against the petitioners, in the facts and circumstances of

the individual cases". The only prayer pressed by counsel appearing in all

the writ petitions is for staying the examination of the common witnesses in

the departmental proceedings till the said witnesses are examined in the

criminal proceedings. The common argument raised by all the counsel for

8 of 163

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050360

CWP-5111-2024 and other connected cases -9- 2024:PHHC:050360

the petitioners is that there are common witnesses in the departmental

proceedings and in the criminal proceedings and the said common witnesses

should not be examined in the departmental proceedings till the time they

are examined in the criminal proceedings as in case the said witnesses are

examined in the departmental proceedings, then, the same would cause

prejudice to the case of the petitioners in the criminal proceedings. In

support of the said argument, learned counsel for the petitioners have relied

upon the 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.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have opposed the writ petitions and have prayed for the dismissal of the writ petitions.

4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has

perused the paper-books and finds that all the present writ petitions are

meritless and deserve to be dismissed for the reasons which have been

detailed hereinafter.

5. Before considering the facts of each case, it would be relevant

to refer to various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as also the

judgments of the Division Bench of this Court, in which the same issue, as

has been raised in the present bunch of writ petitions, has been considered

and has been adjudicated upon. In 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 petitioners 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 consider before staying departmental

proceedings, with respect to the issue in hand, is whether the case involves

9 of 163

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050360

CWP-5111-2024 and other connected cases -10- 2024:PHHC:050360

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

10 of 163

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050360

CWP-5111-2024 and other connected cases -11- 2024:PHHC:050360

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 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

11 of 163

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050360

CWP-5111-2024 and other connected cases -12- 2024:PHHC:050360

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.

6. 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 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

12 of 163

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050360

CWP-5111-2024 and other connected cases -13- 2024:PHHC:050360

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 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

13 of 163

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050360

CWP-5111-2024 and other connected cases -14- 2024:PHHC:050360

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 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 of

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 were decided.

The said order was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by making the

observations which have been reproduced hereinabove.

7. 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 is 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

14 of 163

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050360

CWP-5111-2024 and other connected cases -15- 2024:PHHC:050360

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

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

15 of 163

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050360

CWP-5111-2024 and other connected cases -16- 2024:PHHC:050360

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 question is whether the offences registered against him are established and, if established, what sentence should be imposed upon him. The

16 of 163

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050360

CWP-5111-2024 and other connected cases -17- 2024:PHHC:050360

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......"

8. 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

17 of 163

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050360

CWP-5111-2024 and other connected cases -18- 2024:PHHC:050360

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 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.

9. By relying upon the law laid down in the above-said judgments,

this Court had dismissed CWP-975-2024, decided on 16.01.2024, titled as

18 of 163

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050360

CWP-5111-2024 and other connected cases -19- 2024:PHHC:050360

"Ravi Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others" and also a bunch of two

writ petitions i.e. CWP-11203-2020 titled as "Rajbir Singh and others Vs.

State of Haryana and others" and CWP-17535-2020 titled as "Satish

Chander Vs. State of Haryana and others", vide judgment dated

04.12.2023. Primary prayer in the above-said writ petitions was also for

staying the departmental proceedings during the pendency of the criminal

case registered against the petitioners therein, on the ground that the

allegations in the criminal case as well as in the departmental proceedings

relate to the same incident and in case the common witnesses are examined

in the departmental proceedings prior to their being examined in the criminal

case, then, the same would cause prejudice to their defence in the criminal

proceedings.

10. Against the judgment dated 16.01.2024 passed in the case of

Ravi Kumar (supra) by this Court, LPA No.470-2024 was filed by Ravi

Kumar, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court, vide

judgment dated 15.03.2024. The relevant portion of the said judgment is

reproduced herein below: -

"1. Challenge in the present letters patent appeal is to the order dated 16.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP-975-2024, Ravi Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition wherein, the order dated 21.08.2023 (Annexure P-3) was subject matter of challenge wherein the departmental proceedings had been initiated against the employee who is a police official and the employee had been placed under suspension and summary of allegations (Annexure P-4) and charge sheet had been served upon him on account of the fact

19 of 163

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050360

CWP-5111-2024 and other connected cases -20- 2024:PHHC:050360

that he was involved in criminal case in FIR No. 20 dated 20.08.2023 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 lodge at Police Station ACB, Ambala in which he was arrested by the team of Anti Corruption Bureau.

2. The prayer made in the writ petition was to keep the departmental proceedings in abeyance till the final decision of the criminal case.

xxx xxx xxx xxx

4. In LPA-565-2020, State of Haryana and others vs. Satish Kumar decided by Division Bench of this Court on 30.05.2022, authored by one of us G.S. Sandhawalia, J., we allowed the appeal of the State and dismissed the writ petition by keeping in mind the scope of both set of proceedings and the SLP filed against the same i.e. Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 15243 of 2022 was also dismissed on 10.11.2022. Similar view was also taken in LPA-2096-2017, State of Haryana and others vs. Suresh Punia, decided on 09.09.2022 by Division Bench of this Court in which one of us i.e. G.S. Sandhawalia, J. was Member. SLP (Civil) bearing Diary No.22 of 2023 filed against the same also stands dismissed on 16.01.2023.

5. In State of Karnataka and others vs. Umesh, 2022 SCC Online SC 345, the employee had been proceeded against under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and had been acquitted after giving him the benefit of doubt. Resultantly, the Apex Court had gone on to hold that the principles which govern a disciplinary inquiry are distinct from those which apply to a criminal trial and in the former, the charge has to be established beyond reasonable doubt whereas in the later, the charge of misconduct has to be established on the principle of 'preponderance of probabilities'. It is also held that the rules of evidence which apply to both the procedures are distinct.

6. A three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Shashi

20 of 163

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050360

CWP-5111-2024 and other connected cases -21- 2024:PHHC:050360

Bhusan Prasad vs. Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force and others, (2019) 7 SCC 797 held that the two proceedings i.e. criminal and departmental operate in different fields and have different objectives. The objective of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on an offender whereas the purpose of inquiry proceedings is to deal with the employee departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with the Service Rules.

7. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present appeal, the same stands dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly."

11. Similarly, the judgment of this Court in Rajbir Singh and

others case (supra) was also challenged by filing LPA No.2217-2023; LPA-

324 and 327 of 2024 and a Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment

dated 15.03.2024 dismissed the said LPAs and upheld the judgment of this

Court in Rajbir Singh and others case (supra) and other connected matters.

It would be relevant to note that this Court had also granted interim orders in

some of the writ petitions even after the judgment of this Court in Ravi

Kumar's case (Supra) and Rajbir Singh and others case (supra), as certain

interim orders were passed by the LPA Bench. After the passing of the

judgment of the Division Bench in LPA No.470 of 2024, Ravi Kumar's case

(Supra) upholding the order passed by this Court in CWP No.975 of 2024,

Ravi Kumar's case (Supra), the issue in question stands crystallized and the

present bunch of writ petitions are being finally adjudicated upon.

12. Division Bench of this Court in LPA-252-2021, decided on

23.07.2021 titled as "L/ASI Seema Vs. State of Haryana and others", had

21 of 163

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050360

CWP-5111-2024 and other connected cases -22- 2024:PHHC:050360

in a case, where similar grievance was raised, as has been raised in the

present bunch of writ petitions observed that it was a settled position of law

that proceedings in a criminal case and departmental proceedings can go on

simultaneously and that the purpose of a departmental inquiry and of

prosecution in a criminal case are distinct and different. It was further

observed that the departmental enquiry is conducted in order to maintain

discipline in the service and efficiency of public service and thus, the

disciplinary proceedings should be conducted and completed expeditiously

and that there is no legal bar to the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings

and criminal trial simultaneously and accordingly, the Division Bench

opined that no direction could be given to the effect that common witnesses

in departmental proceedings and the criminal trial would first be examined

in the criminal trial and only thereafter in the departmental proceedings. The

relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein below: -

"We have heard the counsel for the appellant as well as State counsel who was having advance copy of the appeal.

The only grievance of the counsel for the appellant is that the criminal case and the departmental proceedings against the appellant cannot proceed simultaneously as both the said proceedings are based on same set of facts and evidence. He further elaborated that if the departmental proceedings and criminal case against the appellant are allowed to proceed simultaneously, then the defence of the appellant will be prejudiced as the appellant will have to disclose her defence in advance in the departmental proceedings which are going to be conducted at a much fast pace then the proceedings in the criminal trial.

                     xxx    xxx      xxx



                                  22 of 163

                                      Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050360




CWP-5111-2024
and other connected cases                   -23-        2024:PHHC:050360

The plea of the appellant is that the aforesaid criminal case and the departmental inquiry cannot proceed simultaneously as both of them are based on same facts and evidence. This question has been dealt by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony's case (supra) as well as in State Bank of India & Others' case (supra) which have been relied upon by the appellant. The Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the matter came to the following conclusions:-

"(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."

So, it is well settled position in law that proceedings in criminal case and departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously except where departmental proceedings and criminal case are based on same set of facts and evidence. At the same time, the Court cannot ignore the fact that the purpose of departmental inquiry and of prosecution in criminal case are two different aspects. In State Bank of India and Others vs. R.B. Sharma, 2004(7) SCC 27, it was observed as under:-

23 of 163

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050360

CWP-5111-2024 and other connected cases -24- 2024:PHHC:050360

"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. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. It would, therefore, be expedient that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible.

It is not, therefore, desirable to lay down any guidelines as inflexible rules in which the departmental proceedings may or may not be stayed pending trial in criminal case against the delinquent officer. Each case requires to be considered in the backdrop of its own facts and circumstances." The standard of proof in the criminal case is altogether different from that in departmental inquiry. In case of disciplinary enquiry the technical rules of evidence have no application. Also in such a situation the action of the department cannot be termed as double jeopardy as has been held in The Divisional Controller, KSRTC vs. M.G. Vittal Rao, 2012(1) SCC 442 .

It is generally seen that the criminal cases do not proceed quickly, whereas the departmental proceedings are concluded within a short span of time. Admittedly, the appellant is member of the police force. The departmental inquiry is being conducted against her to maintain discipline in the department and efficiency of public service. It would therefore be expedient that the departmental proceedings against the appellant are conducted and completed expeditiously. The disciplinary inquiry cannot be delayed unduly. The learned Single Judge referred to CWP-9999-2006 titled as Prem Singh vs. State of Haryana and Others decided on 28.10.2006, wherein the Division Bench of this Court while referring to judgment in

24 of 163

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050360

CWP-5111-2024 and other connected cases -25- 2024:PHHC:050360

Capt. M. Paul Anthony's case (supra) held that departmental proceedings cannot be permitted to wait endlessly till the conclusion of criminal trial, which may take its own time and it would not be in the interest of the Department that a person like the petitioner who is charged with serious misconduct continued to be in service and accordingly the writ petition was dismissed. The learned Single Judge also referred to Ved Parkash vs. State of Haryana and Others, 2007(4) SCT 423, wherein also the similar view was taken by the Division Bench of this Court in a case relating to bribe accepted by Head Constable working in Haryana Police.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the The Divisional Controller, KSRTC's case (supra) considered the judgement of Capt. M. Paul Anthony's case (supra) and opined that this judgment is not of universal application. Even in State Bank of India and Others' case (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly observed that it is well settled that there is no legal bar to the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings and criminal trial simultaneously.

xxx xxx xxx xxx We are also of the opinion that even no direction could be given to the effect that common witnesses in departmental proceedings and the criminal trial would first be examined in the criminal trial and only thereafter in the departmental proceedings, as it would also prejudice the interest of the department.

In view of the above, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Consequently, the appeal is hereby dismissed being devoid of merits."

13. It would be relevant to note that in the above-said judgment,

counsel for the appellant therein had brought to the notice of the Court

25 of 163

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050360

CWP-5111-2024 and other connected cases -26- 2024:PHHC:050360

different interim orders passed by the Courts whereby stay of departmental

proceedings was ordered and it was directed that common witnesses in the

departmental inquiry and the criminal trial would first be examined in the

criminal trial and thereafter in the departmental proceedings and it was after

considering the said interim orders that the above said judgment was passed

by the Division Bench of this Court, rejecting the pleas of the appellant

therein and upholding the judgment of the learned Single Bench, vide which

the writ petition was dismissed. It would be further relevant to note that the

SLP against the said judgment i.e. Petition for Special Leave to Appeal

(Civil) No.13573-2021 titled as "L/ASI Seema Vs. State of Haryana and

others", was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated

29.11.2021 and thus, the said judgment has attained finality.

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

26 of 163

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050360

CWP-5111-2024 and other connected cases -27- 2024:PHHC:050360

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

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

27 of 163

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050360

CWP-5111-2024 and other connected cases -28- 2024:PHHC:050360

departmental proceedings have been highlighted and it has been further

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.

15. Against the said judgment, an SLP was filed i.e. Petition for

Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.8279-2021 titled as "Dr.Balwinder

Kumar Sharma vs. Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and other and

the learned senior counsel for the appellant therein sought permission to

withdraw the special leave petition and accordingly, vide order dated

17.10.2022, the special leave petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

16. 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 the appellant, in Captain M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines, 1999(3) SCC 679,

28 of 163

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050360

CWP-5111-2024 and other connected cases -29- 2024:PHHC:050360

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

29 of 163

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050360

CWP-5111-2024 and other connected cases -30- 2024:PHHC:050360

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 was 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

neither substantiated nor established. It was also observed that in the said

circumstances, no complicated questions of law and facts were involved.

17. From the above said judgments, the following

principles/conclusions emerge:-

1. Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously though separately. (Specific reference in this regard can be made to the judgment in case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra) (relevant portion of which is reproduced in Para 5 of the present order) and State Bank of India and Ors. (supra) (relevant portion of which is reproduced in Para 8 of the present order)

2. The approach and objective in the criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings is altogether distinct and different inasmuch as in the disciplinary proceedings, the question is as to whether the employee is guilty of such conduct as would merit his removal from service or imposition of lesser punishment whereas in the criminal proceedings, the question is as to whether the offences registered against him are established and if established, what sentence is to be imposed upon him. (Specific reference in this regard can be made to the judgment in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors (supra) (relevant portion of which is

30 of 163

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050360

CWP-5111-2024 and other connected cases -31- 2024:PHHC:050360

reproduced in Para 7 of the present order) and to Shashi Bhusan Prasad vs. Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force and others, reported as 2019(7) SCC 797 and also LPA-470-2024 (relevant portion of which is reproduced in Para 10 of the present order).

3. The mode of the enquiry, the rules governing the enquiry and trial as well as the standard of proof in criminal proceedings and in departmental proceedings are distinct and different and in a criminal case, charge has to be established beyond reasonable doubt whereas in the departmental proceedings, the charge of misconduct has to be established on the principle of "preponderance of probabilities". (Specific reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "State of Karnataka and others vs. Umesh", reported as 2022 SCC Online SC 345 and LPA-470-2024 (relevant portion of which is reproduced in Para 10 of the present order).

4. There should be early conclusion of departmental proceedings so as to weed out any employee whose integrity/character has been put in doubt and to maintain discipline in service and efficiency of public service and also in case the employee is not guilty of any wrong doing, then his honour is required to be vindicated at the earliest. [Specific reference in this regard can be made to the judgment in the case Dr.Balwinder Kumar Sharma's (supra) (relevant portion of which is reproduced in Para 14 of the present order) and Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra) (relevant portion of which is reproduced in Para 5 of the present order).

5. All the ingredients i.e., the departmental proceedings and the criminal case being based on identical and similar set of facts, charge in the criminal case being of grave nature involving complicated questions of law and facts are required to be met before the Court could consider the case of the employee for grant of stay of departmental proceedings during the pendency of the criminal case. (Specific reference in this regard can be made to the

31 of 163

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050360

CWP-5111-2024 and other connected cases -32- 2024:PHHC:050360

case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra); Indian Overseas Bank, Anna Salai and Anr (supra) (relevant portion of which is reproduced in Para 6 of the present order); State Bank of India and Ors. (supra) (relevant portion of which is reproduced in Para 8 of the present order).

6. 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. [Specific reference can be made to the judgment of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra)]. Even the question as to whether the case involves identical and similar set of facts would also have to be considered after taking into consideration the FIR, the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and the charges framed. [Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of Paramjit Kaur's (supra)] (relevant portion of which is reproduced in Para 16 of the present order)

7. The fact that the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charges in the criminal case against the delinquent employee are of grave nature which involve complicated questions of law and facts also cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings and due regard must be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. [Specific reference in this regard can be made to the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra) (relevant portion of which is reproduced in para 5 of the present order) and State Bank of India and Ors. (supra).] (relevant portion of which is reproduced in Para 8 of the present order)

8. Before granting stay of the departmental proceedings, special facts of the case are required to be mentioned, warranting stay of departmental proceedings. (Specific reference in this regard can be

32 of 163

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050360

CWP-5111-2024 and other connected cases -33- 2024:PHHC:050360

made to the judgment of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors (supra) (relevant portion of which is reproduced in Para 7 of the present order).

9. In case all the above parameters are met and the stay of the departmental proceedings has been granted, then also in case, the criminal case is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date. (Specific reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of Capt. M. Paul Anthony's case (supra) (relevant portion of which is reproduced in Para 5 of the present order).

18. This Court would now proceed to decide the individual writ

petitions after considering the facts of each case in the light of law laid down

in the above-said judgments and the above-mentioned

principles/conclusions.

CWP-5111-2024

19. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner Mustaq was

holding the post of Head Constable in Haryana Police when the petitioner

was made an accused in FIR no.26 dated 18.11.2023 registered under

Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at Anti Corruption

Bureau, Faridabad on the complaint of one Naresh Bhadana on the

allegation that the complainant was made an accused in FIR no.559 dated

17.11.2023 registered under Sections 323, 341, 34, 506 IPC at Police Station

Dabua, Faridabad and the said FIR was investigated by the petitioner and the

petitioner demanded a bribe of Rs.50,000/- for removing certain sections

from the FIR and after negotiation, the amount demanded by the petitioner

was reduced to Rs.25,000/-, regarding which the complainant had a

33 of 163

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050360

CWP-5111-2024 and other connected cases -34- 2024:PHHC:050360

recording. A perusal of Annexure P-3 would show that on a raid conducted

by the Anti Corruption Bureau, Faridabad, the petitioner was caught red

handed accepting Rs.20,000/- from the complainant. In the criminal

proceedings, the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been presented and

the same is not on record and the case is now fixed for framing of charges on

04.05.2024. The departmental proceedings were also initiated against the

petitioner and summary of charges (Annexure P-3) was issued to the

petitioner.

20. From the above-said facts, it is apparent that the primary issue

for consideration in the criminal case is as to whether the petitioner had

demanded the bribe from the complainant and thereafter was caught red

handed with the bribe money of Rs.20,000/- or not.

21. In the earlier part of the judgment, this Court after considering

the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the Division

Bench of this Court in various judgments had observed that apart from other

factors one of the primary factors which the Court is to consider before

considering as to whether the evidence of the common 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. The judgments which were relied upon

by this Court were those of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Capt. M.

Paul Anthony (supra), the relevant portion of which had been reproduced in

para 5 of the present order; the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Indian Overseas Bank, Anna Salai and Anr (supra), the relevant

portion of which had been reproduced in para 6 of the present order; the

34 of 163

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050360

CWP-5111-2024 and other connected cases -35- 2024:PHHC:050360

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India

and Ors. (supra), the relevant portion of which had been reproduced in para

8 of the present order; the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in LPA-

470-2024, in which the judgment of this Court in CWP-975-2024, decided

on 16.01.2024 on the same issue was upheld and the relevant portion of the

judgment of the Division Bench is reproduced in para 10 of the present order

and also the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in LPA-252-2021,

decided on 23.07.2021, relevant portion of which has been reproduced in

para 12 of the present order. No complicated question of law or fact has been

brought to the notice of this Court nor any judgment has been cited by the

counsel for the petitioner to show that the facts of the present case give rise

to complicated question(s) of law or facts. This Court is of the opinion that

no complicated question(s) of law or facts arise in the present case so as to

fulfill one of the essential ingredients for considering stay of departmental

proceedings. Further, no special facts arise in the present case, which are

required to be mentioned, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors (supra) warranting stay of

departmental proceedings, rather the allegations against the petitioner are

such that the departmental proceedings are required to be culminated

expeditiously.

22. It would be relevant to note that admittedly in the criminal case,

the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. as noticed hereinabove, has already

been filed but the same has not been annexed and the charges have not been

framed as yet and thus, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench of

this Court in the case of Paramjit Kaur (supra), the relevant portion of

35 of 163

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050360

CWP-5111-2024 and other connected cases -36- 2024:PHHC:050360

which has been reproduced in para 16 of the present order would apply in

the present case, inasmuch as, in the said case it was observed that since the

charge-sheet was not placed before the learned Single Judge, thus, in the

said circumstances, the argument of the appellant therein that the basis of the

departmental proceedings and criminal trial was the same was held to be

neither substantiated nor established. Moreover, since the report under

Section 173 CrPC has not been annexed, therefore, it cannot be said with

absolute certainty as to who are the common witnesses in the criminal case

and in the departmental proceedings and as to whether the charge in the

criminal case and the departmental proceedings is based on identical and

similar set of facts and that there is no additional/extra charge in the

departmental proceedings. It would be further relevant to note that in the

present case the report under Section 173 CrPC has already been submitted

and the statements of all the witnesses under Section 161 CrPC have already

been recorded and a copy of the same has been given to the

petitioner/accused and it is for the prosecution to prove the case against the

petitioner by relying upon the evidence of the witnesses whose statements

have already been recorded under Section 161 CrPC and the documents

which form a part of the report under Section 173 CrPC and thus, the plea of

prejudice raised is misconceived. The Division Bench of this Court in the

case of Dr.Balwinder Kumar Sharma's (supra), the relevant portion of which

has been reproduced in para 14 of the present order, had observed as under: -

"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

36 of 163

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050360

CWP-5111-2024 and other connected cases -37- 2024:PHHC:050360

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."

The SLP against the said judgment has been withdrawn. Thus,

keeping in view the principles as enumerated in paragraph 17 of the present

judgment and the abovesaid facts, there is no ground to accept the arguments

of learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that till the time common

witnesses are examined in the criminal case, the said witnesses should not be

examined in the departmental proceedings and thus, the writ petition being

meritless, deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed.

23. It is made clear that this Court has not opined on the merits of

the allegations either in the criminal proceedings or in the departmental

proceedings and the trial Court in the criminal case as well the competent

authority in the departmental proceedings would consider and adjudicate /

decide the same independently, in accordance with law.

CWP-1801-2024

24. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner-Sumit

Kumar was posted as Ahlmad in the Court of Sh. Tarun Chaudhary, Judicial

Magistrate 1st Class, Faridabad when FIR No.10 dated 17.04.2023 registered

under Sections 7, 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, at Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, Faridabad,

Haryana against the petitioner on the complaint of Yash, son of Pankaj

Sharma on the allegations that when he had come to get two challans

37 of 163

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050360

CWP-5111-2024 and other connected cases -38- 2024:PHHC:050360

processed, he came in contact with the petitioner who demanded Rs.3,000/-

from the complainant for processing the challan and the said matter was

reported by the complainant to his senior who advised him not to pay the

same, and thereafter, the petitioner again demanded Rs.3000/- from the

senior of the complainant although challan was for Rs.2000/- and the

petitioner indicated that bribe would have to be paid, which the complainant

and senior did not wish to pay and had thus, made a complaint. It was

alleged in the FIR that the complainant had telephonic recording of the

conversation. A perusal of Annexure P-4 would show that the petitioner was

caught red handed while accepting the illegal gratification of Rs.3000/- for

getting two traffic challans compounded/disposed of by a team of Anti

Corruption Bureau led by Sh. Shoranlal in the presence of Naveen Hooda,

Assistant Director (IS&H), Labour Department, Circle-3, Faridabad and

other witnesses. Challan, in the present case, has been presented and the case

is now fixed for framing of charges. In spite of specific orders passed by this

Court on 29.01.2024 and 12.02.2024, the petitioner has not placed on record

report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.. The departmental proceedings were

already initiated against the petitioner and as per the statement of charges

(Annexure P-4), the petitioner is alleged to have demanded the illegal

gratification of Rs.3000/- from the complainant-Yash for getting two traffic

challans compounded/disposed of and was caught red handed with bribe

money of Rs.3000/-.

25. Learned State Counsel has informed the Court that in the

present case, out of 14 witnesses, 5 witnesses including the complainant

have been examined in the departmental proceedings.

38 of 163

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050360

CWP-5111-2024 and other connected cases -39- 2024:PHHC:050360

26. From the above-said facts, it is apparent that the primary issue

in the present case is as to whether the petitioner had demanded the bribe of

Rs.3000/- for getting two traffic challans compounded/disposed of and as to

whether he was caught red handed with the said bribe money of Rs.3000/-

by the Anti Corruption Bureau.

27. In the earlier part of the judgment, this Court after considering