Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 752 (MP)

Siddharth Priyadarshan v. State of M. P.

2024-12-04

ANAND PATHAK

body2024
ORDER 1. The present petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:- "(1) That, this Hon’ble Court to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus and may kindly be pleased to quash the Impugned Charge Sheet dt. 22.6.2023 (Ann.P/5) issucd by Respondent No.4, in the interest ofjustice. (ii) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to keep in abeyance the departmental proceedings in pursuance of the impugned charge sheet dt. 22.6.2023 tll the conclusion of the criminal trial, in the interest of justice. (iii) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and properin the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner along with cost of the petition." 2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that the petitioner in the instant petition has challenged the legality of charge sheet dated 22.6.2023 issued by AIG (Vigilance) Police Headquarter (respondent No.4 herein) based entirely on two FIRs, which was registered on the same date i.e. 8.5.2023 against the petitioner on same set of facts and contentions. One FIR against the petitioner was vide Crime No.209/23 at police station Maharana Pratap Nagar, Bhopal under section 36(b) of Excise Act and another FIR vide Crime No.211/2023 was in respect of offence under sections 294, 323, 353, and 186 of IPC. Now charge sheet in both cases have been filed and the matter is under trial. 3. At the one hand, charge sheet in both the cases have been filed and on the other hand, Department has initiated departmental enquiry against the petitioner. This is bone of contention. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that at the relevant point of time, when he was working as Police Inspector, Crime Branch Bhopal, a written complaint was filed by one Sub Inspector Keshant Sharma with the fact that present petitioner and two others persons were drinking alcohol in a public place and when he arrived at the spot after receiving a call from other officer, under the influence of alcohol, they hurled abuses, caused Maar Peet and obstructed the public servant from discharging his duties. 5. It is further submitted that on the allegations, two charge sheets have already been filed and trials are going on against petitioner. 5. It is further submitted that on the allegations, two charge sheets have already been filed and trials are going on against petitioner. Meanwhile, issuance of charge sheet entails initiation of departmental enquiry and if he participates in the departmental enquiry, then his defence would be open and his defence would become vulnerable before the trial Court for the reason that all witnesses in the charge sheet are similar as that of in the departmental enquiry. Therefore, in the interest of justice, and to protect him from the wrath of trial, where his defence would be rendered open, departmental enquiry be stayed till conclusion of the trial. He undertakes that he shall not take undue adjournment in the trial and in fact would take all endeavours to cause conclusion of trial as early as possible without delay. He relied upon judgments of apex Court in the case of Capt.M.Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another (1999) 3 SCC 679 , State Bank of India and others v. Neelam Nag and another (2016) 9 SCC 491 , Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Ltd. v. Girish and others (2014) 3 SCC 636 and judgment of learned Division Bench in the case of Food Corporation of India v. Harish Prakash Hinunia (W.A.No.158/2022 order dated 8.3.2022). 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer and on the basis of reply contested the case. According to learned counsel for respondent, the departmental enquiry can move simultaneously with criminal trial. It is further submitted that both move in different factual back drop and nature of evidence is different in both the proceedings. He relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the cases of Avinash Sadashiv Bhosale v. Union of India 2012(13) SCC 142 and Shashi Bhushan Prasad vs. Inspector General Central Industrial Society Force and others 2019 (7) SCC 797 and referred to paragraphs 17 and 20 in this regard. Since in the present case no complicated questions of fact or law are involved andthere is scientific evidence (medical report supporting consumption of liquor at the relevant point of time) which points towards the involvement of the petitioner in the offence as alleged, therefore, charges levelled against the petitioner in the departmental enquiry finds much force and both can run simultaneously. 7. 7. It is further stated that petitioner was posted as an Inspector in the Crime Investigation Department PHQ Bhopal and as such was not an Inspector in the regular District Police Executive Force. Had the petitioner being in a regular District Police Executive Force, the departmental enquiry would have been conducted by the Superintendent of Police of the particular district. Since petitioner is not in a regular District Police Executive Force therefore, DIG (Administration) authorized the officer concerned DIG (Vigilance) to issue charge sheet to the petitioner. He prayed for dismissal of the petition. 8. Heard counsel for parties at length and perused the documents appended thereto. 9. This a case where the petitioner who was working as police officer at the relevant point of time seeking stay over the departmental enquiry till trial is concluded because he apprehends that in case departmental enquiry is proceeded then his defence may open in trial which may prejudice him in trial. 10. In such similar set of facts, apex Court in the case of Capt. M.Paul Anthony (supra) has given the guidance in para 22 which is reproduced for ready reference:- "22. 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. (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, administration may get rid of him at the earliest." 11. In the series of judgments including Stanzen Toyotetsu (supra), and Neelam Nag (supra) this view has been consistently followed. 12. So far as judgment relied upon by the counsel for the respondents in the case of Avinash Sadashiv Bhosale (supra), para 54 is worth consideration. The same is reproduced for ready reference:- "54.This Court recently reiterated the legal principle that departmental proceedings can be conducted simultaneously to the criminal trial in the case of Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. M.G.Vittal Rao (supra). In this case, making reference to almost all the previous precedents, this Court has reiterated the legal position as follows:- 54.1 There is no legal bar for both proceedings to go on simultaneously. 54.2 The only valid ground for claiming that the disciplinary proceedings may be stayed 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 and law. 54.3 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. 54.4 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. 54.5 In our opinion, the principle culled out by this Court would be a complete answer to all the submissions made by Mr. Jain. 13. 54.4 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. 54.5 In our opinion, the principle culled out by this Court would be a complete answer to all the submissions made by Mr. Jain. 13. Para 54.4 contemplates that if departmental proceedings and criminal trial are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common then departmental enquiry ought to be stayed so that defence may not be opened to add vulnerability in the trial. 14. Here in the present case, the petitioner referred a chart prepared in this regard. On perusal of the same indicates that list of witnesses of departmental enquiry and list of statements under section 161 of Cr.P.C. of witnesses provided in the charge sheet are identical. The said charge can be reproduced so far as list of witnesses of departmental enquiry in just a position to list of statement of witnesses in charge sheet. S. No. List of witnesses of Departmental Enquiry (Page No. 50) of petition List of statements under section 161 of Cr.P.C. of witnesses provided along with statement of Charges in DE (Starting from Page No. 52 till 67) 1 Thana Prabhari CID Bhopal 2. Sudhir Arjariya Nirakshak Thana Prabhari MP Sudhir Arjariya Nirakshak Thana Prabhari M.P. Nagar Bhopal 3. Keshant Sharma-Sub Inspector Thana MP Nagar (Complainant in FIR No. 211) Keshant Sharma 4. Harsh Sonagre Harsh Sonagre 5. Pramod Singh   Chouhan (Complainant in FIR No. 209) Pramod Singh Chouhan 6. Pradhan Aarakshak Arjun Singh Pradhan Aarakshak Arjun Singh 7. Sumant Varma Sumant Verma 8. Harendra Singh Gurjar Harendra Singh Gurjar 9. Ranjeet Singh Yadav Ranjeet Singh Yadav 10. Vijay Pal Vijay Pal 11. Satyaprakash Bakariya Satyaprakash Bakariya 12. Parmanand Shakya Parmanand Shakya 13. Bharat Singh Chauhan Bharat Singh Chauhan 14. Meherban Parmar Meherban Parmar 15. Ramchandra Ramchandra 16. Haricharan Haricharan 17. Dr. Rajesh Choudhary Dr. Rajesh Choudhary 18. Saurabh Choudhary 19. Vipin Singh Rajawat Dr. Meherwan Singh 15. Therefore, apprehension of the petitioner appears to be well founded when he says that departmental enquiry may open up his defence to his detriment in criminal trial. 16. Meherban Parmar Meherban Parmar 15. Ramchandra Ramchandra 16. Haricharan Haricharan 17. Dr. Rajesh Choudhary Dr. Rajesh Choudhary 18. Saurabh Choudhary 19. Vipin Singh Rajawat Dr. Meherwan Singh 15. Therefore, apprehension of the petitioner appears to be well founded when he says that departmental enquiry may open up his defence to his detriment in criminal trial. 16. Resultantly, petition deserves to be allowed but with a caveat because it cannot be a condition where trial may keep on lingering and departmental enquiry is stayed to the benefit of petitioner. Undue delay may not give undue premium to the petitioner in departmental proceedings. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner shall not take any undue adjournments in the trial and prosecution witnesses shall appear before the trial Court without fail so that trial can be completed within twelve months from the date of order and till then the departmental enquiry would be kept in abeyance. If trial is not concluded on or before December, 2025 then respondents/State shall have the liberty to start the departmentalproceeding against petitioner in accordance with law. Till then it shall be kept in abeyance. 17. Needless to say that trial as well as departmental enquiry shall be proceeded (whenever it proceeds) on merit in accordance with law. 18. Petition stands allowed and disposed off in above terms.