Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1498 (PNJ)

Rajpal Singh v. State Of Punjab And Others

2009-08-25

AJAI LAMBA

body2009
Judgment Ajai Lamba, J. 1. This petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing list of allegations dated 22.04.2009 Annexure P-2 and charge sheet dated 07.08.2009 Annexure P-3 and proceedings flowing therefrom. In the alternative, prayer has been made that departmental proceedings be stayed till such time criminal case on the same allegations is pending against the petitioner. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has only stressed on the second prayer in regard to the stay of departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner. 2. It has been pleaded that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable in Punjab Armed Police on 19.03.2002 on regular basis. On the night of 02.04.2009, as per the pleaded case of the petitioner in para No. 3 of the writ petition, petitioner was going on his motor cycle at about 9:00 p.m. in the locality of Model Town, Jalandhar for purchasing medicines. On the basis of mistaken identity, the people of the locality caught hold of the petitioner under the impression that the petitioner had snatched purse of a lady. Case of the petitioner is of denial. Be that as it may, FIR bearing No. 137 dated 02.04.2009 had been registered for committing an offence under Section 382. Copy of the FIR has been placed on record as Annexure P-1. 3. Perusal of the FIR indicates that Amrit Pal Singh lodged a complaint to the effect that his wife Surinder Kaur, after purchasing household articles, reached near the gate of the house in a rickshaw. The complainant Amrit Pal Singh also came near the gate to take hold of the household articles from the rickshaw. While wife of the complainant was giving fare money to the rickshaw puller, a clean shaven person came on a motor cycle from back side, snatched the purse of Smt. Surinder Kaur and ran away. Noise was raised whereupon people gathered. A young boy namely Dara Singh acting in a bold manner, caught hold of the thief on the motor cycle. The thief was caught with the motor cycle. Particulars of the motor cycle have been given in the FIR. The accused gave out his name as Rajpal Singh s/o Kishan Singh i.e. the petitioner. 4. It seems that the incident was reported in the newspapers. The thief was caught with the motor cycle. Particulars of the motor cycle have been given in the FIR. The accused gave out his name as Rajpal Singh s/o Kishan Singh i.e. the petitioner. 4. It seems that the incident was reported in the newspapers. Respondent No. 2 i.e. Commandant, 80th Battalion, PAP, Jalandhar Cantt. ordered a departmental inquiry against the petitioner. Respondent No. 3 i.e. DSP Paramjit Singh Pannu has been appointed as the inquiry officer. List of allegations Annexure P-2 has been served upon the petitioner which is dated 22.04.2009 and is under challenge. 5. Perusal of Annexure P-2 indicates that on the basis of news report, the petitioner had been suspended. In the list of allegations, it has been said that FIR had been registered against the petitioner with the allegation that the petitioner had indulged in the incident of purse snatching from Surinder Kaur. The petitioner being a member of disciplined force, by committing such an act, had spoiled the image of the department and would be liable to punishment. Departmental inquiry was initiated. 6. The petitioner insisted that the matter be kept in abeyance till such time the criminal case is decided. In the petition, it is the pleaded case that the petitioner was given to understand that inquiry proceedings will be stopped after recording statement of prosecution witnesses in the departmental inquiry. Be that as it may, the petitioner continued to participate in the inquiry proceedings. Recording of statement of prosecution witnesses was concluded by last week of July 2009. The petitioner again requested respondent No. 3 to stop the departmental inquiry as further proceedings would force the petitioner to disclose his defence and thereby his rights would be prejudiced. Be that as it may, charge sheet Annexure P-3 has been served on the basis of the inquiry. Perusal of charge-sheet indicates that contents are in the same terms as Annexure P-2. 7. Learned counsel contends that perusal of Annexure P-1, the allegations of the FIR and contents of Annexures P-2 and P-3 being same, the petitioner is entitled to the relief of stay of departmental proceedings, while the criminal case is going on. 8. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel. 7. Learned counsel contends that perusal of Annexure P-1, the allegations of the FIR and contents of Annexures P-2 and P-3 being same, the petitioner is entitled to the relief of stay of departmental proceedings, while the criminal case is going on. 8. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel. The issue has been considered by the Honble Supreme Court of India in case reported as State Bank of India and Others v. R.B. Sharma, 2004(3) SCT 833 : AIR 2004 Supreme Court 4144. The following needs to be extracted from the, judgment :- "8. The purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution are two different and distinct aspects. The criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of a duty the offender owes to the society, or for breach of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. So crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. It would, therefore, be expedient that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible. It is not, therefore, desirable to lay down any guidelines as inflexible rules in which the departmental proceedings may or may not be stayed pending trial in criminal case against the delinquent officer. Each case requires to be case against the delinquent of considered in the backdrop of its own facts and circumstances. There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental enquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the charge in the criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law. Offence generally implies infringement of public duty, as distinguished from mere private rights punishable under criminal law. When trial for criminal offence is conducted it should be in accordance with proof of the offence as per the evidence defined under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, (in short the `Evidence Act). Converse is the case of departmental enquiry. The enquiry in a departmental proceeding relates to conduct or breach of duty of the delinquent officer to punish him for his misconduct defined under the relevant statutory rules or law. That the strict standard of proof or applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded is a settled legal position. Converse is the case of departmental enquiry. The enquiry in a departmental proceeding relates to conduct or breach of duty of the delinquent officer to punish him for his misconduct defined under the relevant statutory rules or law. That the strict standard of proof or applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded is a settled legal position. Under these circumstances, what is required to be seen is whether the department enquiry would seriously prejudice the delinquent in his defence at the trial in a criminal case. It is always a question of fact to be considered in each case depending on its own facts and circumstances. 10. There can be no straight jacket formula as to in which case the departmental proceedings are to be stayed. There may be cases where the trial of the case gets prolonged by the dilatory method adopted by delinquent official. He cannot be permitted to, on one hand, prolong criminal case and at the same time contend that the departmental proceedings should be stayed on the ground that the criminal case is pending. (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. Same issue was considered in a subsequent judgment namely Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Others v. Sarvesh Berry, 2005(1) SCT 179 : (2005)10 Supreme Court Cases 471. 10. In the later judgment while dealing with the issue in similar terms, it has been concluded that there can be no straight-jacket formula as to in which case departmental proceedings are to be stayed. There may be cases where trial of the case gets prolonged by the dilatory method adopted by the delinquent official. He cannot be permitted to, on the one hand, prolong the criminal case and at the same time contend that the departmental proceedings should be stayed on the ground that the criminal case is pending. There may be cases where trial of the case gets prolonged by the dilatory method adopted by the delinquent official. He cannot be permitted to, on the one hand, prolong the criminal case and at the same time contend that the departmental proceedings should be stayed on the ground that the criminal case is pending. The Honble Supreme Court of India has taken note of the facts of the case which was lodged for commission of offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In that context, it has been held how the assets were acquired and from what source of income is within the special knowledge of the accused. Therefore, there is no question of any disclosure of defence in departmental proceedings. After noticing the facts, judgment of the High Court was set aside and appeal has been allowed. It has also been said that if ultimately the employee is found not guilty, his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the employer may get rid of him at the earliest. 11. The issue has also been considered by Division Bench of this Court while dealing with 2008(1) S.L.R. 444 Rattan Pal v. Punjab Gramin Bank and another. While making a reference to Supreme Court judgments in AIR 1965 Supreme Court 155, Tata Oil Mills Company Ltd. v. The Workmen, Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another, 1999(2) SCT 660 : (1999)2 RSJ 318, Recent Services Judgments (1950-1988) Vol. 1342, Makhan Singh v. Narainpura Co-operative Agricultural Service Society Ltd. and another, AIR 2004 Supreme Court 4144, State Bank of India v. R.B. Sharma, it has been held :- "Thus, it is not always necessary that departmental proceedings should be stayed pending criminal trial in every case on the ground that criminal trial was pending and the employee could not be required to disclose his defense. Whether or not the petitioner will be prejudiced by conduct of enquiry pending criminal trial, is a matter to be appreciated during enquiry or thereafter. The standard of proof required being different in both proceedings and there being no bar to departmental proceedings being continued, we do not find any ground to entertain this petition at this stage." The petition accordingly was dismissed. The standard of proof required being different in both proceedings and there being no bar to departmental proceedings being continued, we do not find any ground to entertain this petition at this stage." The petition accordingly was dismissed. 12 Considering the gist of law on the issue as noticed above, it follows that there can be no straight jacket formula as to in which case the departmental proceedings are to be stayed. It is well settled position in law that on basic principles, proceedings in criminal case and departmental proceedings can go on simultaneous. Criminal prosecution is launched for commission of an offence for violation of a duty the offender owes to the society, or for a breach of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. It is an anti-social behaviour. 13. A departmental inquiry is to maintain discipline in service and efficiency in public office. Under the circumstances, it would be expedient that disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible. 14. Whereas when trial for criminal offence is conducted, it shall be in accordance with proof of the offence as per the evidence defined under provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 whereas, departmental proceedings relate to conduct or breach of duty of the delinquent official/officer to punish him for his misconduct defined under the relevant statutory Rules or law. That strict standard of proof or applicability Evidence Act stands exonerated as a settled legal proposition. Under these circumstances what is required to be seen is whether continuance of departmental inquiry would seriously prejudice the delinquent in his defence at the trial in the criminal case. 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, while in the criminal case final report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed, in the departmental proceedings charge sheet has been issued. Be that as it may, it is not conceivable as to what defence would be required to be disclosed by the petitioner, in view of peculiar allegations against the petitioner, so as to cause prejudice to his rights. The petitioner, a constable in Punjab Armed Police was caught red handed after incident of purse Snatching. Be that as it may, it is not conceivable as to what defence would be required to be disclosed by the petitioner, in view of peculiar allegations against the petitioner, so as to cause prejudice to his rights. The petitioner, a constable in Punjab Armed Police was caught red handed after incident of purse Snatching. In the petition, in para No. 3, it has been disclosed that it was on mistaken identity that the people of the locality had caught hold of the petitioner under the impression that it was the petitioner who had snatched the purse of the victim lady. The facts and issues involved in the criminal case are not so complex as to direct stay of departmental proceedings, during continuance of trial proceeding in criminal case. 16. Considering collectively the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that attempt by way of filing of this petition is only to delay the conclusion of departmental proceedings. Facts and circumstances indicate that departmental proceedings would be concluded within a short span considering the pace and stage of proceedings while conclusion of criminal trial is likely to take long. 17. In view of the above, I find no convincing ground to direct stay of departmental proceedings during the pendency of the criminal case. The petition is accordingly dismissed.