Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 350 (MP)

Sanjeev Raghuvanshi v. State of M. P.

2021-03-12

VISHAL MISHRA

body2021
JUDGMENT : Vishal Mishra, J. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard. 1. The present petition is being filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs: "(i) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the further proceedings of the Departmental Enquiry pending against the petitioner before the City Superintendent of Police Vidisha till the final decision in the criminal case pending against the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Bhopal. (i) Any other relief deemed fit be also granted. (ii) Cost of the petition." 2. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner mainly on the ground that the criminal trial and departmental enquiry on the same issue cannot proceed. Against the petitioner the challan has been filed alleging commission of offence under section 376 (2) (N) of IPC and sections 3 (2) (v), 3 (1) (w) (iii) of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the departmental enquiry has also been initiated against him by serving the charge sheet dated 5.10.2019 (Annexure P/3). 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the criminal trial and the departmental enquiry are on the same issue and if the departmental enquiry proceeds before conclusion of the criminal trial, then the petitioner's defence in the criminal trial will be prejudiced. In support of his prayer for staying the departmental enquiry he has placed reliance upon the order of this Court in the case of Anil Tyagi Vs. State of M.P. and another (W.P. No. 619/2018 decided on 24.4.2018). 4. Per Contra counsel for the State has opposed the petition stating that the conclusion of the criminal trial will take time and the departmental enquiry proceedings cannot be stayed for the indefinite period and even in the case of Anil Tyagi (supra) the stay was only for a period of one year. He has opposed the prayer for staying the departmental enquiry pending the criminal proceedings. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. From perusal of the record, it is seen that the allegation against the petitioner in the pending criminal trial is that the complainant made a complaint against the petitioner who was posted in Police Chowki Atarikhejda, Police Station Gyaraspur that the petitioner maintained illicit relationship with her on the false promise that he will marry her and thereafter he stealthily performed his marriage with another girl. In the departmental enquiry the charge of the petitioner is the same that when he was posted in Police Chowki Atarikhejda, Police Station Gyaraspur, the complainant made a complaint that the petitioner maintained illicit relationship with her on the false promise that he will marry her and thereafter he stealthily performed his marriage with another girl. Thus, the petitioner has committed serious misconduct. Accordingly the act of the petitioner is contrary to the Rule 3 (1) (iii) of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 and Regulation 64 (3) of Madhya Pradesh Police Regulation. The charge sheet as well as the allegation in the criminal case reveal that the petitioner is facing the departmental enquiry for the same charge for which he is prosecuted in the criminal case. In the matter of Anil Tyagi (supra) this court after considering the legal position had stayed the departmental enquiry proceedings for one year by observing as under:- "The Supreme Court in the matter of State Bank of India and others Vs. Neelam Nag and another reported in (2016) 9 SCC 491 while taking note of the earlier judgment on the point, has held that though there is no legal bar for holding the departmental proceedings and criminal trial simultaneously but if the criminal charge against the employee is grave and continuation of the Departmental Enquiry is likely to prejudice his defence before the criminal court, then the departmental proceedings can be stayed, however such proceedings cannot be stayed for the indefinite period. In that case the departmental proceedings were stayed for a period of one year with a direction to conclude the trial in the criminal case and further direction to resume the enquiry in case if the criminal trial is not concluded within that period. Supreme Court in the matter of State Bank of India (supra) in this regard has held as under:- "13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. The only question that arises for consideration, is no more res integra. It is well-settled that there is no legal bar to the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings and criminal trial simultaneously. However, no straight jacket formula can be spelt out and the Court has to keep in mind the broad approach to be adopted in such matters on case to case basis. It is well-settled that there is no legal bar to the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings and criminal trial simultaneously. However, no straight jacket formula can be spelt out and the Court has to keep in mind the broad approach to be adopted in such matters on case to case basis. The contour of the approach to be adopted by the Court has been delineated in series of decisions. 14. This Court in Karnataka SRTC vs. M.G. Vittal Rao has summed up the same in the following words: "(i) There is no legal bar for both the proceedings to go on simultaneously. (ii) The only valid ground for claiming that the disciplinary proceedings may be stated would be to ensure that the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced. But even such grounds would be available only in cases involving complex questions of facts or law. (iii) Such defence ought not to be permitted to unnecessarily delay the departmental proceedings. The interest of the delinquent officer as well as the employer clearly lies in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. (iv) Departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously to the criminal trial, except where both the proceedings are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common." 15. The recent decision relied on by the appellant in the case of Stanzen, has adverted to the relevant decisions including M.G. Vittal Rao. After adverting to those decisions, in para 16, this Court opined as under: (Stanzen case, SCC p. 643) "16. Suffice it to say that while there is no legal bar to the holding of the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal trial simultaneously, stay of disciplinary proceedings may be an advisable course in cases where the criminal charge against the employee is grave and continuance of the disciplinary proceedings is likely to prejudice their defence before the criminal Court. Gravity of the charge is, however, not by itself enough to determine the question unless the charge involves complicated question of law and fact. The Court examining the question must also keep in mind that criminal trials get prolonged indefinitely especially where the number of accused arraigned for trial is large as is the case at hand and so are the number of witnesses cited by the prosecution. The Court examining the question must also keep in mind that criminal trials get prolonged indefinitely especially where the number of accused arraigned for trial is large as is the case at hand and so are the number of witnesses cited by the prosecution. The Court, therefore, has to draw a balance between the need for a fair trial to the accused on the one hand and the competing demand for an expeditious conclusion of the ongoing disciplinary proceedings on the other. An early conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings has itself been seen by this Court to be in the interest of the employees." 16. The Court then went on to examine the facts of that case and observed in para 18 as follows: "18. .......The charge-sheet, it is evident from the record, was filed on 20.8.2011. The Charges were framed on 20-12- 2011. The trial Court has ever since then examined only three witnesses so far out of a total of 23 witnesses cited in the charge-sheet. Going by the pace at which the trial Court is examining the witnesses, it would take another five years before the trial may be concluded. The High Court has in the judgment under appeal given five months to the trial Court to conclude the trial. More than fifteen months has rolled by ever since that order, without the trial going anywhere near completion. The disciplinary proceedings cannot remain stayed for an indefinitely long period. Such inordinate delay is neither in the interest of the appellant Company nor the respondents who are under suspension and surviving on subsistence allowance........." In paragraph 19, the Court proceeded to conclude thus: "19. In the circumstances and taking into consideration all aspects mentioned above as also keeping in view the fact that all the three Courts below have exercised their discretion in favour of staying the ongoing disciplinary proceedings, we do not consider it fit to vacate the said order straightaway. Interests of justice would, in our opinion, be sufficiently served if we direct the Court dealing with the criminal charges against the respondents to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible but in any case within a period of one year from the date of this order. We hope and trust that the trial Court will take effective steps to ensure that the witnesses are served, appear and are examined. We hope and trust that the trial Court will take effective steps to ensure that the witnesses are served, appear and are examined. The Court may for that purpose adjourn the case for no more than a fortnight every time an adjournment is necessary. We also expect the accused in the criminal case to cooperate with the trial Court for an early completion of the proceedings. We say so because experience has shown that the trials often linger on for a long time on account of non-availability of the defence lawyers to cross-examine the witnesses or on account of adjournments sought by them on the flimsiest of the grounds. All that needs to be avoided. In case, however, the trial is not completed within the period of one year from the date of this order, despite the steps which the trial Court has been directed to take the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondents shall be resumed and concluded by the inquiry officer concerned. The impugned orders shall in that case stand vacated upon expiry of the period of one year from the date of the order." In the final conclusion it was directed that:- "27. Accordingly, we exercise discretion in favour of the respondent of staying the ongoing disciplinary proceedings until the closure of recording of evidence of prosecution witnesses cited in the criminal trial, as directed by the Division Bench of the High Court and do not consider it fit to vacate that arrangement straightway. Instead, in our opinion, interests of justice would be sufficiently served by directing the criminal case pending against the respondent to be decided expeditiously but not later than one year from the date of this order. The Trial Court shall take effective steps to ensure that the witnesses are served, appear and are examined on day-today basis. In case any adjournment becomes inevitable, it should not be for more than a fortnight when necessary. 28. We also direct that the respondent shall extend full cooperation to the Trial Court for an early disposal of the trial, which includes cooperation by the Advocate appointed by her. 29. If the trial is not completed within one year from the date of this order, despite the steps which the Trial Court has been directed to take the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent shall be resumed by the enquiry officer concerned. 29. If the trial is not completed within one year from the date of this order, despite the steps which the Trial Court has been directed to take the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent shall be resumed by the enquiry officer concerned. The protection given to the respondent of keeping the disciplinary proceedings in abeyance shall then stand vacated forthwith upon expiry of the period of one year from the date of this order." In the present case also while entertaining the writ petition this Court had stayed the further proceedings in the Departmental Enquiry. The charge in the criminal case is grave in nature and the Departmental Enquiry is based upon the registration of the criminal case, hence in the circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that the interest of justice will be served by issuing the same directions as have been issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India (supra). Hence, the present writ petition is disposed off by directing the court concerned, where the criminal case is pending, to expedite the trial of the case and further directing the petitioner to extend full cooperation before the trial Court for the early disposal of the trial. It is further directed that the interim order passed by this Court will continue for a period of one year and in case if the trial in the criminal case is not completed within a period of one year from the date of this order, then this interim order will stand automatically vacated on completion of one year and the respondents will resume the Departmental Enquiry." 7. In the present case also position is the same. The departmental enquiry and criminal trial are on the same set of facts but the departmental enquiry cannot be stayed for the indefinite period, therefore, having regard to the aforesaid position in law the present writ petition is disposed off by directing that the departmental enquiry will remain stayed for a period of one year. However if the criminal trial is not concluded within a period of one year, it would be open to the respondents to resume the departmental enquiry. 8. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off. E-copy/Certified copy as per rules/directions.