Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1426 (PNJ)

Ram Niwas v. State Of Haryana

2008-08-21

JITENDRA CHAUHAN, M.M.KUMAR

body2008
Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. The petitioner who is a police official, has approached this Court with a prayer for restraining the respondents to continue with departmental inquiry in pursuance to Charge Sheet dated 29.3.2007 during the pendency of criminal trial in case FIR No. 23 dated 27.12.2006 registered under Sections 409,120-B IPC at P.S. Sectors 31. Faridabad and FIR No. 9 dated 17.1.2007 registered under Sections 409, 120-B IPC registered at P.S. Madhuban. The principal ground to support the aforementioned prayer is that Rule 16.3 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, as applicable to Haryana is violated in letter and spirit by permitting the continuation of departmental inquiry. 2. Brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of the instant petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Constable in the year 1981- He earned various promotions and was eventually promoted as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 2006. He was posted as Incharge of Re-Browning Workshop, 2nd Battalion Haryana Armed Police, Madhuban. On 27.12.2006, the Director General of Police, Head Quarter Faridabad conducted a checking at District Police Line Kot, Faridabad and 303 empty cartridges were found short as per record. On further investigation, it was discovered that on 26.12.2006 EHC Satpal Singh posted in Police Line Kot, Faridabad had gone to DGP Kot Madhuban to deposit 7790 empty cartridges but he had actually deposited only 7090 empty cartridges. An FIR No. 273 was lodged against Satpal Singh on 27.12.2006 at P.S. Sector 31, Faridabad. On 28.12.2006, Superintendent of Police, Faridabad wrote a letter to respondents explaining the aforementioned position and requested for conducting a checking of records as well as stocks in DGP Kot Madhuban. In the checking conducted at DGP Kot, Madhuban, empty cartridges weighing 8 quintals 12 kgs were found short. On 3.1.2007 respondents constituted a committee to check the relevant record of Arms and Ammunitions and directed the Committee to submit its report fixing the responsibility, for the shortage. The Committee submitted its report to the respondents by recording the finding that Incharge DGP Kot Sub Inspector Prem Singh and Assistant Sub Inspector Jai Kishan, were responsible for the shortage. On 4.1.2007, the petitioner was placed under suspension. After conducting checking of DGP Kot Madhuban on 17.1.2007, an FIR was lodged against Prem Singh, who was posted at DGP Kot Madhuban where the empty cartridges were found short. 3. On 4.1.2007, the petitioner was placed under suspension. After conducting checking of DGP Kot Madhuban on 17.1.2007, an FIR was lodged against Prem Singh, who was posted at DGP Kot Madhuban where the empty cartridges were found short. 3. It is conceded position that the name of the petitioner has been added in both the FIRs during investigation. In case FIR No. 273 challan was presented in the Court in September 2007. Which is pending consideration for 16.12.2008. In case FIR No. 9 dated 17.1.2007 charges have not been framed and the trial court has fixed 26.8.2008 as next date of hearing. 4. On 9.3.2007, the petitioner has been served with a charge-sheet along with list of witnesses and documents. The allegations in the charge-sheet (Annexure P- 8) are that the petitioner in connivance with Ram Niwas and Prem Singh extorted Rs. 26,000/- from EHC Satpal in order to make up the deficiency of 4000 empty cartridges. The aforementioned amount is alleged to have been distributed amongst each other. It has further been alleged that while the petitioner was posted at DGP Kot Madhuban empty cartridges of Brass Metal weighing 8 quintals 12 kgs were found in his possession and that they sold the Brass in connivance with each other. He has caused loss of Rs. 2,05,000/- to the Government exchequer. Reference has also been made to FIR No 273 dated 27.12.2006 and FIR No. 9 dated 17.1.2007. It has also been noticed that the petitioner was arrested on 6.2.2007 and was also placed under suspension. 5. Mr. R.S. Bains, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that once criminal trial is pending inquiry on the same set of allegations proposed to be proved by same set of witnesses, should be stayed as it would be wholly improper. According to learned counsel in cases where the allegations in the departmental inquiry as well as in criminal trial are similar then the departmental inquiry must be stayed. In that regard he has placed reliance on Rule 16.3 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 and argued that by continuation of departmental inquiry the rule is violated in letter and spirit. 6. We have thoughtfully considered the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and are of the view that this petition lacks merit and is thus liable to be dismissed. 6. We have thoughtfully considered the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and are of the view that this petition lacks merit and is thus liable to be dismissed. It is in exceptional circumstances where complicated issues of facts and law are raised in criminal trial that the proceedings in departmental inquiry are required to be stayed. It is trite to observe that the object of criminal trial is to segregate the accused afflicted with malady of criminal intent so as to permit the rest of the society to live in peace. The responsibility of bringing such an accused to book is that of the State Government which isto ensure that no criminal could escape the rigors of law and is suitably sentenced. The Investigating Agencies are clothed with wide powers in that regard. It is further patent that in a criminal trial the allegations are required to be proven beyond reasonable doubts. However, in departmental inquiry the object is entirely different. The department concern where a delinquent is facing inquiry proceedings, is keen to find out whether the delinquent employee has committed misconduct so as to get rid of him from the department or to inflict upon him any of these specified penalties. The ancillary object is also worthwhile to notice namely that the working of department does not suffer and its image is not tarnished besides suffering of monetary loss, therefore, we are of the considered view that the departmental inquiry is liable to be stayed. 7. It is further appropriate to notice that in somewhat similar circumstances a Division Bench of this Court, (of which one of us M.M. Kumar, J, is a member) has dealt with the afore-mentioned proposition in some details in the case of Prem Singh vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 9999 of 2006, decided on 28.10.2006. We have noticed the judgments of Honble the Supreme Court in the cases of State of Rajasthan vs. B.K. Meena, 1996(6) SCC 417, Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., 1999(3) SCC 679, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs. T. Srinivas, 2004 SCC 442, State Bank of India vs. R.B. Sharma, 2004(7) SCC 27. 8. We have noticed the judgments of Honble the Supreme Court in the cases of State of Rajasthan vs. B.K. Meena, 1996(6) SCC 417, Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., 1999(3) SCC 679, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs. T. Srinivas, 2004 SCC 442, State Bank of India vs. R.B. Sharma, 2004(7) SCC 27. 8. On the basis of the judgment in B.K. Meenas case (supra) we have taken a view that prejudice to the defence of a delinquent employee before the criminal court is only one of the factor, which is laced with a number of other factors namely that the parties must be the same and the case must involve complicated questions of law and facts. In that regard the Division Bench has relied upon Paras 14 and 15 of the judgment in B.K. Meenas ease (supra). Likewise, we have placed reliance on Para 22 of the he judgment of Honblethe Supreme Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthonys case (supra) which reads thus: "22. (i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. (ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case are against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till conclusion of the criminal case. (iii) 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 basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge-sheet. (iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. (iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. (v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty the administration may get rid of him at the earliest." 9. When the facts of the present case are examined in the light of propositions laid down in the aforementioned paras it becomes evident that in the present case there are no complicated questions of facts and law involved. The FIRS were registered on 27.12.2006 and 17.1.2007 and the investigation has been conducted at its own speed. In both the FIRs a period of more than 1-1/2 years have passed and the trial is progressing at its own pace. If the departmental proceedings are made to depend on conclusion of trial then the possibility of undue delay in completion of departmental proceedings cannot be ruled out which is one of the principal laid down in Capt. M. Paul Anthonys case (supra) therefore we find that it would not be proper to stay the proceedings in the departmental inquiry. 10. The arguments of learned counsel that the provisions of Rule 16.3 of Punjab Pojice Rules would be violated has also not impressed us. It would be appropriate to read the rule to enable us to appreciate the arguments. "16.3. Action following on a judicial acquittal. 10. The arguments of learned counsel that the provisions of Rule 16.3 of Punjab Pojice Rules would be violated has also not impressed us. It would be appropriate to read the rule to enable us to appreciate the arguments. "16.3. Action following on a judicial acquittal. - (1} when a Police Officer has been tried and acquitted by a criminal court he shall be not punished departmentally on the same charge or on a different charge upon the evidence cited in the criminal case whether actually led or not, unless:- (a) the criminal charge has failed on technical grounds; or (b) in the opinion of the court or of the Superintendent of Police, the prosecution witnesses have been won over; or (c) the court has held in its judgement that an offence was actually committed and that suspicion rests upon the police officer concerned; or (d) the evidence cited in the criminal case discloses facts unconnected with the charge before the Court which justify departmental proceedings on a different charge; or (e) additional evidence admissible under Rule 16.25(1) in a departmental proceedings is available. (f) in a departmental proceedings is available." 11. A perusal of the aforementioned Rule, makes it evident that it would apply to a situation where the trial of a criminal case is concluded resulting into acquittal of an employee who is facing departmental inquiry as well on the same charge or on a different charge. The rule is couched in a language which does not grant absolute immunity to an employee on acquittal by a criminal Court.In cases where the criminal charge from departmental enquiry has failed on technical grounds or if in the opinion of the Court or the Superintendent of Police the prosecution witnesses have been won over or the Court has held in its judgment that the offence was actually committed and the suspicion rests upon the police official concerned etc. the departmental inquiry can be initiated. In the present case, the trial has not concluded resulting in acquittal of the petitioner, therefore the rule would not be applicable. In any case the rule does not in terms prohibit the holding of departmental inquiry simultaneously, therefore, the arguments that the proceedings in the departmental inquiry must be stayed has apparently proceeded on wrong assumption. Therefore, we have no hesitation to reject the argument. 12. In any case the rule does not in terms prohibit the holding of departmental inquiry simultaneously, therefore, the arguments that the proceedings in the departmental inquiry must be stayed has apparently proceeded on wrong assumption. Therefore, we have no hesitation to reject the argument. 12. For the reasons aforementioned, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.