Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravi Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 15 March, 2024
Author: G.S.Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S.Sandhawalia
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037905-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
114/2 2024:PHHC:037905-DB
LPA No.470 of 2024 (O & M)
Date of Decision: 15.03.2024
Ravi Kumar .....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr. Ashish Naik, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
G.S.SANDHAWALIA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral)
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 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. The learned
Single Judge has placed reliance upon the observations of the Apex Court in Capt.
M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., 1999 (3) SCC 679 to observe that
out of 9 witnesses, 5 witness had been examined and it was not clear whether any
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037905-DB
LPA No.470 of 2024 (O & M) -2- 2024:PHHC:037905-DB
common witnesses had been left to be examined or not and there was no
complicated question of law involved. Reliance has 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 Karnataka
SRTC vs. M.G. Vittal Rao, (2012) 1 SCC 442. A Division Bench judgment of
this Court 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 was also referred to. Reliance was further placed upon the
Division Bench judgment of this Court in LPA-239-2022, Paramjit Kaur vs.
Punjab and Sind Bank and others, decided on 24.03.2022 and the fact that the
charge sheet was not placed before the Court and, therefore, the contention that
the departmental proceedings and criminal trial were the same could not have been
substantiated nor established. The investigation being not complete, the report
under Section 173 Cr.P.C. being not submitted and the charges not being framed
weighed with the learned Single Judge to dismiss the petition.
3. We have perused the FIR in question which talks about the demand of
bribe as such for release of dumper vehicle of the complainant on superdari
impounded in FIR No. 330 under Section 279, 304-A IPC, P.S. Ladwa, District
Kurukhetra (Annexure P-5). The departmental proceedings as such are of the
charges are of indiscipline and bringing a bad name to the image of the police on
which the proceedings as such had been initiated. Thus, the ambit of the
departmental proceedings is in a totally different frame and it would be governed
by the fact that the departmental proceedings are to be decided on 'preponderance
of probabilities' whereas on the criminal side, the charge has to be proved beyond
a shadow of doubt. Even otherwise, keeping in view the law laid down in Capt.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037905-DB
LPA No.470 of 2024 (O & M) -3- 2024:PHHC:037905-DB
M. Paul Anthony's case (supra), as noticed by the learned Single Judge, the
departmental proceedings cannot be delayed for times to come. The charge, as
noticed, not being framed in the criminal proceedings weighed with the learned
Single Judge to come to the conclusion that the appellant could be proceeded in
any manner in the departmental proceedings and the charge has not been framed
in criminal proceedings which would necessarily take a long time to conclude.
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 Bhusan Prasad
vs. Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force and others, (2019) 7
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037905-DB
LPA No.470 of 2024 (O & M) -4- 2024:PHHC:037905-DB
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.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
15.03.2024 (MANISHA BATRA)
shivani JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking Yes
Whether reportable No
4 of 4
