Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 8 (MEG)

Pynhunlang M. Syiem v. State of Meghalaya

2018-03-28

S.R.SEN

body2018
JUDGMENT : S.R. Sen, J. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. ND Chullai assisted by Mr. B Khyriem appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate Mr. K. Khan appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner's case in a nut shell is:- "That the informant lodged a First Information Report alleging that recently that the said person (Informant) found out that the Petitioner has been manipulating and cheating on her for which she tried to end the relationship cordially. However, the Petitioner became aggressive and assaulted her and blackmail her that if she report it the Petitioner would publish their intimate videos which he captured without her knowledge. It was also alleged that on 13.12.2016 the Petitioner came to the residence of the said person (Informant) at Kench's Trace in the pretext of bringing a television set and unfortunately the Petitioner raped her. The Officer Incharge, Laban Police Station on receipt of the said written First Information Report registered a Police Case against the petitioner in Laban P.S. Case No. 134 (12) of 2016 under sections 376/323/292-A/506) IPC. However, on 14.12.2016 the said person (Informant) submitted a letter to the said officer incharge for withdrawal of the said First Information Report against the Petitioner. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide impugned D.O. No. 4567 dated 16.2.2016 placing the Petitioner under suspension with immediate effect and a Show Cause notice was also issued to the Petitioner on 16.2.2017 by the Respondent No. 2. In pursuance to the Show Cause Notice the Petitioner submitted his written reply but the written reply submitted by the Petitioner was found not satisfactory and accordingly a Departmental Proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner. The Departmental Proceeding was drawn up against the Petitioner and the Petitioner was furnished with the Article of Charges and the statement of imputation. On receipt of the said Article of Charges and the statement of imputation, the Petitioner submitted his show cause denying the charges and imputation. The Respondent No. 3 vide Order dated 3.3.2017 appointed an inquiry officer in connection with the Departmental proceeding against the Petitioner. By the said Order the Inquiry Officer has been directed to complete the inquiry against the petitioner within a Period of 2 (two) months. The Respondent No. 3 vide Order dated 3.3.2017 appointed an inquiry officer in connection with the Departmental proceeding against the Petitioner. By the said Order the Inquiry Officer has been directed to complete the inquiry against the petitioner within a Period of 2 (two) months. The Petitioner vide representation dated 21.4.2017 requested the Assistant Inspector General Of Police (A), Shillong to keep the Departmental Proceeding against the Petitioner in abeyance on the ground stated in the said Petition. That the Petitioner begs to state that in spite of the fact that the representation dated 21.4.2017 had been filed by the Petitioner for keeping in abeyance the Departmental Proceeding No 1 of 2017, the Respondent authorities have sought to continue the Departmental Proceeding knowing fully well of the pendency of the Criminal trial against the Petitioner. The Respondent No 5 vide letter dated 21.11.2017 directed the Petitioner to appear before her for recording the statement of the Investigation Officer on 28.11.2017 at 11 A.M positively in her office chamber at Fire and Emergency Service Headquarter, (Fire Brigade) Nongthymmai, Shillong. Failing which the Departmental Proceeding will be drawn Ex Parte. Hence this Writ Petition." 3. Learned senior Counsel Mr. ND Chullai appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was charge-sheeted under section 376 IPC along with other charges and the petitioner is working in the Police Department, so the question arise whether the departmental proceedings and the trial in a serious case can go simultaneously. He further submits that as far as various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in serious cases, departmental proceedings and trial cannot proceed simultaneously. On the other hand, learned State Counsel submits that, this is the case whether departmental proceedings as well as the trial can proceed because it does not fall under a grievous offence such as POCSO Act etc. He also referred Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Another, 1999 (82) FLR 627 (SC). 4. After hearing the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the decision made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred case as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears to me that the departmental proceedings and the proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. In para 22 (ii), the Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that 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 in 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. In para 22 (iii), the Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed 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 the investigation or as reflected in the charge-sheet. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also made it clear that the factors mentioned in Clauses (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. It is also further observed 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 it at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case if he is found guilty, the administration will get rid of him at the earliest. 5. After scanning the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as referred above and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, section 376 is involved, I am of the opinion that the offence is grave in nature and therefore, I am of the view that the departmental proceedings need to be stayed till the disposal of the criminal case pending and faced by the petitioner. Accordingly, the departmental proceedings are hereby stayed till conclusion of the criminal case pending against the petitioner and Session Court is also directed to expedite the trial and dispose of the matter as early as possible. 6. With these observations and directions, the instant writ petition is allowed and stands disposed of.