Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajinder Parshad vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 5 August, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100244
CWP-22881-2016 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
215 CWP-22881-2016 (O&M)
Date of decision: 05.08.2024
Rajinder Parshad ..Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
Present: Mr. Sunil K. Nehra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Tapan Kumar, DAG, Haryana.
***
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed for quashing the chargesheet
dated 07.10.2016 on the ground that criminal proceedings on the same set of
allegations have been initiated against the petitioner and the same are still
pending.
2. Learned State counsel submits that the issue as involved in the
present case already stands decided against the petitioner in Mustaq vs. State of
Haryana and others, CWP-5111-2024, on 10.04.2024, the LPA challenging
which was also dismissed on 23.05.2024. Relevant paras of the judgment passed
by the Single Bench read thus:-
"xxx xxx xxx
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
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100244
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 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 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
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100244
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 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)."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to controvert the
above and draw out any distinctive aspects in the aforementioned judgment or
cite any contrary law.
4. In view of the above, the present petition is hereby dismissed.
( AMAN CHAUDHARY )
05.08.2024 JUDGE
Satyawan/ashok
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
