Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 15 March, 2024
Author: G.S.Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S.Sandhawalia
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037713-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
113/3, 114/1 and 115 2024:PHHC:037713-DB
LPA No.2217 of 2023 (O & M)
LPA Nos.324 and 327 of 2024 (O & M)
Date of Decision: 15.03.2024
Rajesh 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(s).
Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
G.S.SANDHAWALIA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral)
1. The present judgment shall dispose of three letters patent appeals i.e.
LPA No.2217 of 2023 and LPA Nos.324 and 327 of 2024. For the purpose of
dictating the judgment, LPA-2217-2023, Rajesh Kumar vs. State of Haryana and
others is being referred to.
2. The present set of appeals is directed against the order 04.12.2023
passed the learned Single Judge whereby, the two writ petitions bearing CWP
No.11203 of 2020, Rajbir Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others and
CWP No. 17535 of 2020, Satish Chander vs. State of Haryana were disposed of,
in which appellants were also party.
3. The primary relief as such, which the writ petitioners/appellants were
seeking in the writ petitions, was that the departmental proceedings which were
initiated during the pendency of criminal proceedings be quashed with a further
prayer 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
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037713-DB
LPA No.2217 of 2023 (O & M), LPA Nos.324 and 327 of 2024 (O & M) -2-
2024:PHHC:037713-DB
Ltd., 1999 (3) SCC 679 to observe that 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. 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 The Divisional Controller,
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.
4. In the present case, it was also noticed that the departmental
proceedings were initiated in the year 2020 and there was a lapse of three years
and the same had not been concluded on account of interim orders being passed.
It was noticed that in the case of Rajbir Singh, Sahab Singh, Rajesh Kumar and
Gurnam Singh, challan was filed on 18.05.2020 and in the case of Satish Chander,
supplementary challan was filed on 20.09.2021. It was noticed that there were 81
prosecution witnesses and the challan and the supplementary challan had not been
produced on record. The charges had not been framed and the case was fixed for
framing of charges. The three departmental witnesses had been examined in writ
petition filed by Rajbir Singh, Sahab Singh, Rajesh Kumar and Gurnam Singh.
Five witnesses had been examined in the departmental proceedings against Satish
Chander, who is petitioner in CWP-17535-2020 and on account of interim orders
passed, the progress was not being made. The allegations as such in the FIR in
question i.e. FIR No. 84 dated 18.02.2020 under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037713-DB
LPA No.2217 of 2023 (O & M), LPA Nos.324 and 327 of 2024 (O & M) -3-
2024:PHHC:037713-DB
and 120-B IPC and Section 66 of the I.T. Act, 2000 registered at Police Station
Civil Lines, Karnal were that fake TA bills had been prepared by the employees
and the same had been got deposited in various accounts and thereafter lakhs of
rupees had been withdrawn and misappropriation of huge funds of the State
Government had been done. The departmental proceedings, thus, had been
initiated against the employees who are police officials and they had misused their
position while posted on different positions and prepared fake TA bills and the
image of the Police Department had been tarnished in the eyes of general public
and being members of the disciplined force, the said image had been apparently
lowered. It is in such circumstances, the learned Single Judge has declined the
relief as such to stay the departmental proceedings.
5. We are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has
considered both the law which has been holding the field and which has developed
over the years and dismissed the writ petitions. The general view which has now
come from the judgments which have been relied upon is that departmental
proceedings cannot as such be kept back to await the result of criminal
proceedings which can drag over years to come. In the present case, as noticed,
the departmental proceedings were initiated on account of the fact that the police
officials as such being entrusted with the work of preparing the TA bills had
misconducted themselves and lowered the image of the police, which operates in a
different field altogether than what is the charge which is yet to be framed, which
could be of embezzlement. Thus, the ambit of departmental proceedings is totally
different than what is the scope of criminal proceedings. The criminal Court
would have to prove it beyond the shadow of doubt to secure a conviction whereas
under departmental proceedings, principle of 'preponderance of probabilities' is to
be kept in mind and the loss of confidence the employer has to deal with.
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037713-DB
LPA No.2217 of 2023 (O & M), LPA Nos.324 and 327 of 2024 (O & M) -4-
2024:PHHC:037713-DB
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 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
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037713-DB
LPA No.2217 of 2023 (O & M), LPA Nos.324 and 327 of 2024 (O & M) -5-
2024:PHHC:037713-DB
16.01.2023.
10. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the view
which has been taken by the learned Single Judge is a plausible view based on the
law which has been laid down by the Apex Court and keeping in view the facts
and circumstances that the matter has been stayed as there was interim protection
operating whereas criminal proceedings are yet to get a start. A large number of
prosecution witnesses are involved in a magisterial trial which is likely to drag on
for years to come. In such circumstances, the department cannot as such be
burdened with the surplus of unwanted employees who have as such tarnished the
image of the Department and there is a lack of confidence and, therefore, retaining
such kind of employees also would be a factor which has to be kept in mind.
11. 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 appeals, the same stand 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
5 of 5
