Punjab-Haryana High Court
Islam Ahmed vs State Of Haryana And Others on 30 April, 2024
Author: G.S. Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058955-DB
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:058955 -DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(108) LPA-279-2024 (O&M)
Decided on : 30.04.2024
Islam Ahmed ......Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present: Mr. Amit Bansal, Advocate for the appellant (s).
Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. AG, Haryana.
*****
G.S. Sandhawalia, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)
CM-2565-LPA-2024
Application for placing on record charge framed by Criminal
Court as Annexure P-4, in compliance of the order dated, is allowed, subject to
just exceptions. Said document is taken on record. Office to append the same
at the relevant place.
CM stands disposed of.
CM-642-LPA-2024
Application for condonation of delay of 20 days in filing the
appeal, is allowed, in view of the averments made in the application, duly
supported by affidavit. Delay of 20 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
CM stands disposed of.
LPA-279-2024 (O&M)
Consideration in the present letters patent appeal is sought of the
order of the learned Single Judge dated 04.12.2023 passed in CWP No.22365
of 2020, whereby the writ petition was disposed of as infructuous with liberty
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058955-DB
LPA-279-2024 (O&M) -2-
to pursue the departmental proceedings. Challenge in the writ petition was
that during the pendency of the trial in case FIR No.5 dated 14.09.2020
(Annexure P-1) registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, departmental proceedings should be stayed.
2. The Learned Single Judge has noticed that all the common
witnesses in the departmental proceedings have been examined and, thus, the
present writ petition has been rendered infructuous. An effort was also made
for recalling the said order by filing CM-181-CWP-2024, which was
dismissed on 11.01.2024, which is also subject matter of challenge herein.
The Learned Single Judge again reiterated that employee has already cross-
examined the common witnesses and, thus, the plea of prejudice cannot be
raised.
3. Counsel for the appellant lastly submitted that since the
Investigating Officer has not been examined, the departmental proceedings
should be kept in abeyance.
4. We are not in agreement with the argument raised by the counsel
for the appellant. A perusal of the paper-book would go on to show that the
FIR was lodged 3½ years back and the charge was framed by the Criminal
Court on 01.06.2022. The departmental proceedings are already at an
advanced stage. The purpose of the departmental proceedings is to ensure that
the persons against whom there are serious allegations of mis-conduct are not
to be kept in service. Merely on account of the fact that the trial in the
criminal proceedings is going on, the appellant cannot seek the benefit to
continue in service, in case there is no report against him.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058955-DB
LPA-279-2024 (O&M) -3-
5. Reliance can be placed upon the observations of the Apex Court
in Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., 1999 (3) SCC 679
wherein it has been held the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly
delayed and even if the criminal proceedings do not proceed, the departmental
proceedings, even if they have been stayed, the same can be resumed and
proceeded with. Similarly reliance can also been placed upon the judgments of
the Apex Court rendered in Indian Overseas Bank, Anna Salai and another
vs. P. Ganesan and others, (2008) 1 SCC 650; Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan and others vs. T. Srinivas, (2004) 7 SCC 442; State Bank of
India and others vs. Neelam Nag and another, (2016) 9 SCC 491 and The
Divisional Controller, Karnataka SRTC vs. M.G. Vittal Rao, (2012) 1
SCC 442 and a judgment of the Coordinate Bench rendered in CWP-7539-
2021, Dr. Balwinder Kumar Sharma vs. Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana
High Court through Registrar General, decided on 28.05.2021.
6. 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 difference and scope of
criminal proceedings and departmental 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.
7. 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
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058955-DB
LPA-279-2024 (O&M) -4-
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 was also
held that the rules of evidence which apply to both the procedures are distinct.
8. A three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Shashi 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. 9.
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.
9. In such circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere in the order
of the Learned Single Judge. It is settled principle that the departmental
proceedings always proceed on a different footing wherein preponderance of
probabilities is to be kept in mind, whereas on the criminal side the principles
are that the prosecution has to prove his case beyond a shadow of doubt on the
basis of the evidence of stellar quality. Resultantly, we do not think it is a fit
case to exercise extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India, since finding of the Learned Single Judge does not
suffer from any infirmity.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058955-DB
LPA-279-2024 (O&M) -5-
10. Resultantly, in view of the above discussion, the present appeal is
hereby dismissed. All pending applications are also disposed of.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(LAPITA BANERJI)
30.04.2024 JUDGE
Naveen
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
