Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 241 (ALL)

Munna Lal v. State of U. P. and Others

2011-01-31

DILIP GUPTA

body2011
Hon’ble Dilip Gupta, J.—The petitioner, who is a Constable in the U.P. Police, has filed this petition for quashing the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Rule 14(1) of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. 2. It is stated in the writ petition that a First Information Report was lodged against the petitioner on 13th June, 2004 under Sections 420/419/467/468/471/120-B of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Civil Lines District Allahabad which was registered as Case Crime No.258 of 2004. In the departmental proceedings, a charge sheet dated 31st December, 2010 was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application dated 3rd January, 2011 before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gautam Budh Nagar for staying the departmental proceedings initiated against him till the criminal case is decided. This petition has been filed for a direction upon the respondents not to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings till the criminal case is decided. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the departmental proceedings relate to the same incident regarding which the criminal case is pending against the petitioner, the same needs to be stayed as the defence of the petitioner in the criminal proceedings will be adversely affected and in support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Captain M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines & Anr., 1993 (3) SCC 679. 4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has, however, submitted that there is no automatic stay of the disciplinary proceedings and it is necessary to examine whether charges and evidence in both the proceedings are common and in support of his contention he has relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India & Ors. v. R.B. Sharma, (2004) 7 SCC 27 2005 and Indian Overseas Bank, Annasalai & Anr. v. P. Ganesan & Ors., (2008) 1 SCC 650 . 5. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. In Captain M. Paul Anthony (supra), the Supreme Court observed:- “The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are : (i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. 6. In Captain M. Paul Anthony (supra), the Supreme Court observed:- “The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are : (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 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 the 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. (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.” 7. In R.B. Sharma (supra), the Supreme Court observed :- “It is fairly well-settled position in law that on basic principles proceedings in criminal case and departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously, except where departmental proceedings and criminal case are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common. ................... The purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution are two different and distinct aspects. 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. ................... The purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution are two different and distinct aspects. 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 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 proceedings 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.” (emphasis supplied) 8. In Indian Overseas Bank (supra), the Supreme Court observed :- “Legal position operating in the field is no longer res integra. A departmental proceedings pending a criminal proceedings does not warrant an automatic stay. It is always a question of fact to be considered in each case depending on its own facts and circumstances.” (emphasis supplied) 8. In Indian Overseas Bank (supra), the Supreme Court observed :- “Legal position operating in the field is no longer res integra. A departmental proceedings pending a criminal proceedings does not warrant an automatic stay. The superior courts before exercising its discretionary jurisdiction in this regard must take into consideration the fact as to whether the charges as also the evidence in both the proceedings are common and as to whether any complicated question of law is involved in the matter. ............ The High Court, unfortunately, although noticed some of the binding precedents of the Court failed to apply the law in its proper perspective. The High Court was not correct in its view in concluding that the stay of the departmental proceedings should be granted in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case without analyzing and applying the principle of law evolved in the aforementioned decisions. It, therefore, misdirected itself in law. What was necessary to be noticed by the High Court was not only existence of identical facts and the evidence in the matter, it was also required to take into consideration the question as to whether the charges levelled against the delinquent officers, both in the criminal case as also the disciplinary proceedings, were same. Furthermore it was obligatory on the part of the High Court to arrive at a finding that the non-stay of the disciplinary proceedings shall not only prejudice the delinquent officers but the matter also the matter involves a complicated question of law. The standard of proof in a disciplinary proceedings and that in a criminal trial is different. If there are additional charges against the delinquent officers including the charges of damaging the property belonging to the Bank which was not the subject matter of allegations in a criminal case, the departmental proceedings should not have been stayed.” (emphasis supplied) 9. It is, therefore, clear that each case has to be examined in the light of the observations made in the aforesaid judgments. 10. In the instant case, the petitioner has filed an application for staying the disciplinary proceedings. 11. It is, therefore, clear that each case has to be examined in the light of the observations made in the aforesaid judgments. 10. In the instant case, the petitioner has filed an application for staying the disciplinary proceedings. 11. This writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with a direction to the Competent Authority to examine the said application filed by the petitioner in the light of the decisions referred to above and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed by the petitioner. _____________