Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rakesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 18 March, 2024
Author: G.S. Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038747-DB
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:038747-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(111) CM-1723-LPA-2024 in/and
LPA-373-2024 (O&M)
Decided on : 18.03.2024
Rakesh Kumar ......Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Haryana & others ......Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present: Mr.Parvesh K.Saini, Advocate for the applicant-appellant (s).
Mr.Deepak Balyan, Addl.A.G., Haryana.
*****
G.S. Sandhawalia, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)
CM-1723-LPA-2024
1. Application for placing on record additional documents as
Annexures A-3 & A-4 is allowed, in view of the averments made in the
application duly supported by affidavit of the appellant. Same are taken on
record, subject to just exceptions. Office to append the same at appropriate
place.
2. CM stands disposed of.
CM-867-LPA-2024
3. Application for condoning the delay of 18 days in filing the
appeal is hereby allowed in view of the averments made in the application
duly supported by affidavit of the appellant. Delay of 18 days in filing the
present appeal is hereby condoned.
4. CM stands disposed of.
LPA-373-2024 (O&M)
5. Consideration in the present appeal is to the judgment passed by
the Learned Single Judge dated 15.12.2023 in CWP-28251-2023 whereby the
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038747-DB
(111) CM-1723-LPA-2024 in/and LPA-373-2024 (O&M) -2-
said writ petition had been dismissed. The relief claimed was for quashing of
the order dated 05.09.2023 (Annexure P-5) wherein disciplinary proceedings
had been initiated by the Superintendent of Police against the writ petitioner,
Head Constable Rakesh Kumar. Similarly, the charge-sheet issued in the
departmental proceedings dated 11.09.2023 (Annexure P-6) was also subject
matter of challenge.
6. The Learned Single Judge found that though there was also a
criminal case registered bearing FIR No.22 dated 24.08.2023 under Section
384 IPC and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short,
the 'PC Act') but no complicated question of law was involved. The list of
witnesses in the departmental proceedings had been annexed but no list of
witnesses in the criminal case had been annexed and therefore, it could not be
ascertained as to who were the common witnesses. The Learned Single Judge
placed reliance upon the initial law which had been laid down in the celebrated
judgment of the Apex Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold
Mines Ltd., 1999 (3) SCC 679 and the subsequent judgments reported in
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & others Vs. T.Srinivas, 2004 (7) SCC
442, Indian Overseas Bank, Anna Salai & another Vs. P.Ganesan &
others, 2008 (1) SCC 650, Karnataka SRTC Vs. M.G.Vittal Rao, (2012) 1
SCC 442 and State Bank of India & others Vs. Neelam Nag & another,
2016 (9) SCC 491 and the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in
CWP-7539-2021 titled Dr.Balwinder Kumar Sharma Vs. Hon'ble Punjab &
Haryana High Court through Registrar General, decided on 28.05.2021 and
LPA-239-2022 titled Paramjit Kaur Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank & others,
decided on 24.03.2022, to dismiss the writ petition.
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038747-DB
(111) CM-1723-LPA-2024 in/and LPA-373-2024 (O&M) -3-
7. Vide CM-1723-LPA-2024, additional documents have now been
placed on record whereby the charge-sheet which was prepared by the
Addl.Sessions Judge, Hisar dated 11.12.2023 is sought to be placed on record
as Annexure A-3. Similarly, the list of witnesses in the above-said FIR by
way of additional documents have also been placed on record. A perusal of
the charge-sheet would go on to show that the Criminal Court came to the
conclusion that prima facie case was made out and accordingly, framed the
charge under Section 384 IPC which is of extortion by threatening the
complainant by falsely implicating him in a case of kidnapping and for having
received Rs.10,000/-. Similarly, the charge under Section 7 of the PC Act for
illegal gratification for not implicating the complainant in the case of
kidnapping was also framed apart from the charge under Sections 7, 13(1)(b)
read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act.
8. A perusal of the departmental charge-sheet would go on to show
that the statement of allegations were regarding serious dereliction and
carelessness in government duty, having tarnished the image of Police
Department in public and having misused the post. In such circumstances, it is
apparent that the charge in the departmental proceedings and the criminal
proceedings are operating in two different fields. The charges have to be
proved in a different manner in as much as in criminal proceedings, the
charges have to be proved beyond the shadow of doubt whereas in
departmental proceedings, on the principle of preponderance of probabilities.
The Learned Single Judge has also taken notice of the developments which
had taken place over the period of time. The charge has recently been framed
in December, 2023, as placed on record and the trial is likely not to conclude
in the near future. In such circumstances, the loss of confidence on having
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038747-DB
(111) CM-1723-LPA-2024 in/and LPA-373-2024 (O&M) -4-
misused his post and the manner in which he has behaved would have to be
considered in the departmental proceedings.
9. The principle of law is that the criminal proceedings and
departmental proceedings can proceed simultaneously and there is no bar as
they operate in different fields. It is a matter of common knowledge and
experience that criminal cases drag on endlessly and get bogged down on one
or the other ground and the chances of reaching to a logical end expeditiously
is almost impossible as it is in the interest of the accused that the proceedings
drag on forever. Disciplinary proceedings are thus meant to keep the
administration clean and the loss of confidence is an important factor with the
employer and for this purpose, the disciplinary proceedings should be
concluded at the earliest. The standard of proof, the mode of enquiry and the
rules governing the enquiry and trial in both the cases are entirely distinct and
different as in criminal proceedings, the prosecution has to prove its case
beyond the shadow of doubt whereas in departmental proceedings, on the
preponderance of probabilities that a person can be removed from service arise
in the facts and circumstances so that appropriate punishment can be imposed.
Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in State of
Rajasthan Vs. B.K.Meena, (1996) 6 SCC 417.
10. The said view was then followed in Lalit Popli Vs. Canara
Bank & others, 2003 (3) SCC 583 wherein it was held that approach and
object are altogether distinct and different in both the proceedings and while
exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Writ
Court does not act as an Appellate Authority and it is only to correct errors of
law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles
of natural justice.
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038747-DB
(111) CM-1723-LPA-2024 in/and LPA-373-2024 (O&M) -5-
11. Similar view was also taken in Chairman-cum-M.D.,T.N.C.S.
Corpn. Ltd. Vs. K.Meerabai 2006 (2) SCC 255 wherein the Apex Court set
aside the Division Bench judgment of the High Court by noting as under:
"23. The learned Judges of the Division Bench who dismissed the writ
appeal filed by the Corporation upheld the patently erroneous
judgment of the learned single Judge virtually on all those grounds and
reasons which had appealed to the learned single Judge. While passing
the impugned judgment, the learned Judges have lost sight of the
following:-
(i) The scope of the Criminal Proceedings in a Criminal Code
and the scope of disciplinary proceedings in a departmental
enquiry are quite distinct, exclusive and independent of each
other;
(ii) The Criminal Proceedings in the Court of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate and Disciplinary Proceedings were on totally
different sets of facts and charges;
(iii) The order of dismissal dated 28.11.1991 (Annexure P-5)
passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the order dated
16.6.1994 of the Appellate Authority, dismissing the
respondent's Departmental Appeal are exhaustive orders,
incorporating the statement of the correct and relevant facts of
the case and impeccable conclusions based on dispassionate
appreciation of the evidence on record and supported by legally
irrefutable reasons.
24. In our opinion, both the learned single Judge and the learned
appellate Judges of the High Court failed to consider and appreciate
dispassionately and judicially the Corporation's most emphatically
pronounced plea that it would be virtually impossible for them to
reinstate the respondent who was found in the departmental enquiry
guilty of mis-appropriation and other malpractices causing thereby
enormous loss in stock and cash to the Corporation, an institution
primarily concerned with the distribution of essential commodities
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038747-DB
(111) CM-1723-LPA-2024 in/and LPA-373-2024 (O&M) -6-
among the weaker sections of the population of the State of Tamil
Nadu whose dismissal from service has been upheld by the appellate
authority vide its very detailed, well-considered and well-reasoned
verdict and in whose integrity, honesty and trustworthiness the
Corporation have lost their faith completely and absolutely."
12. Reliance can also be placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court
in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Dilip Uttam
Jayabhay, 2022 (1) SCT 340 wherein while allowing the appeal, the Apex
Court upheld the order of dismissal of the workman from service passed by the
disciplinary authority. In the said case, the workman was working as Driver
and plying a passenger bus and met with an accident with a jeep. He was also
proceeded under Section 279 IPC and came to be acquitted and therefore, got
reinstatement since the Industrial Tribunal came to the conclusion that drivers
of both the vehicles were negligent. The said order had been upheld by the
High Court and was then taken to the Supreme Court wherein the reasoning
which prevailed with the Apex Court was that the Industrial Court was in error
in laying stress on the acquittal of the workman by the Criminal Court. The
fact that disciplinary proceedings had been initiated and it was on conclusion
of an enquiry he had been dismissed by noting that the workman was driving
the vehicle at a great speed and pushed the jeep back by 25 feet. Resultantly,
it was held that the workman was negligent and it could not be said that the
dismissal was shocking and disproportionate or that it was unfair labour
practice. The record of the case had also been seen that the workman was in
service for 3 years and was punished 4 times during that period.
11. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the
Learned Single Judge, keeping in view the settled principle, did not err in any
manner in dismissing the writ petition. Resultantly, finding no merit in the
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038747-DB
(111) CM-1723-LPA-2024 in/and LPA-373-2024 (O&M) -7-
present appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. All pending application(s)
including CM-868-LPA-2024 for additional evidence also stand disposed of.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
18.03.2024 (LAPITA BANERJI)
Sailesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : No
7 of 7
