Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others

CWP-16365-2023 oooooooo1 2023:PHHC:155197o INoTHEooHIGHoCOURToOFoPUNJABo&oHARYANAoAT CHANDIGARH *** ooooooCWP-16365-2023 o Dateoofodecisiono:o05.12.2023 AshokoKumaro ...oPetitionero Versus StateoofoHaryanaoandoothers ...oRespondents CORAM:o HON'BLEoMR.oJUSTICEoVIKASoBAHL Present:o Mr.AshokoTyagi,oAdvocateo forotheopetitioner. Mr.NaveenoSinghoPanwar,oDAG,oHaryana. VIKASoBAHL,oJ.(ORAL)

¶1This is a civil writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 05.01.2022 (Annexure P-2) vide which the Superintendent of Police, Jind, has initiated departmental enquiry against the petitioner during the pendency of trial in FIR no.362 dated

04.12.2021 registered under Sections 34, 376(2), 377, 406, 506 IPC at Police Station Julana, District Jind. Challenge is also laid to summary of allegations dated 27.10.2022 (Annexure P-3) served by the Inquiry Officer-cum-DeputyoSuperintendentoofoPolice,oCityoJind.

¶2Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner was enrolled in the Police Department on 19.11.2003 as a Constable and was appointed as an Assistant Sub Inspector on 15.08.2019. FIR no.362 dated

04.12.2021 under Sections 34, 376(2), 377, 406, 506 IPC was registered on the complaint of M. (name is not being disclosed) on the allegations that the petitioner had forcibly developed physical relations with her and used to 2023.12.08 17:39 call her and used to forcefully enter her house at night and used to rape her CWP-16365-2023 oooooooo2 2023:PHHC:155197o without her consent and also mislead her by stating that he would marry her and had taken a total of Rs.9,35,000/- on different occasions from her and that he had threatened to defame her and kill her and in June, 2021, the petitioner married another girl by deceiving the complainant and has also been regularly threatening the complainant with serious consequences and that the complainant had recordings of the same in whatsapp chat and also hadophotographsoregardingotheosame.

¶3Although the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been filed and even charges have been framed, neither the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been annexed nor the order of framing of charges has been annexed. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and vide order dated 05.01.2022 (Annexure P-2), the Superintendent of Police had suspended the petitioner and had directed the DSP, Jind to conduct a regular departmental enquiry by holding day to day proceedings. The summary of allegations (Annexure P-3) has also been issued against the petitioner in which it has been stated that the petitioner is accused of having committed rape and sexual exploitation, blackmailing and embezzlement of money and extending threats to kill the complainant. In the said summary of allegations, it has also been stated that the complainant had got her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and even the pen drive of pictures as well as the audio recording of the conversation has also been given to the police and it has been stated that the petitioner by doing the above said act, has committed an act of grave indiscipline and tarnished the image of the police department before the people. This Court has been informed that out of 10 witnesses in the departmental proceedings, 7 witnesses have been examined including the complainant and in the 2023.12.08 17:39 criminal proceedings, out of 19 witnesses, 6 witnesses including the CWP-16365-2023 oooooooo3 2023:PHHC:155197o complainant have been examined. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case there are 3 common witnesses out of which 1 common witness has been examined and has prayed that till the examination of the said common witnesses does not take place in the criminal case, the departmental proceedings be kept in abeyance inasmuch as if the said witnesses are examined in the departmental proceedings, then the defence of the petitioner/accused would be disclosed and the same would cause prejudice to the petitioner in the criminal case. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as "Capt.oM.oPauloAnthony Vs. BharatoGoldoMinesoLtd.",oreportedoaso1999(3)oSCCo679.

¶4Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the present writ petition and has submitted that it is a matter of settled law that criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously though separately. It is further contended that neither the evidence in the criminal case is to be relied upon in the departmental proceedings nor evidence in the departmental proceedings is to be relied upon in the criminal case and thus, the apprehension of the petitioner is misplaced. It is also submitted that in the present case, the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has already been filed in the criminal case and the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have already been recorded and thus, the plea raised by the petitioner to the effect that the State would improve their case after the cross-examination of the common witnesses in the departmental proceedings is also misconceived. It is also contended that no complicated question of law and facts arise in the present case and thus, 2023.12.08 17:39 praysothatotheopresentowritopetitionobeodismissed. CWP-16365-2023 oooooooo4 2023:PHHC:155197o

¶5This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper-book and finds that the present writ petition is meritless and deserves to be dismissed for the reasons which have been detailed hereinafter.o

¶6Before considering the facts of the present case, it would be relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Capt.oM. PauloAnthony's case (supra), which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the said judgment and also in various other judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it has been repeatedly held that one of the necessary ingredients for the Court to consider before staying departmental proceedings, with respect to the issue in hand, is whether the case involves complicated questions of law and facts or not. Paragraph 22 of the judgment in Capt.oM.oPauloAnthony's case (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:- "22. The conclusions which are deducible from various decisionsoofothisoCourtoreferredotooaboveoareo:o

(i) Departmentalo proceedingso ando proceedingso ino a criminalocaseocanoproceedosimultaneouslyoasothereoisono baro ino theiro beingo conductedo simultaneously,o though separately.o

(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 whicho involves complicatedo questionso ofo lawo ando fact,o ito wouldo be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusionoofotheocriminalocase.o

(iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is graveoandowhetherocomplicatedoquestionsoofofactoandolaw areoinvolvedoinothatocase,owillodependouponotheonatureoof authenticity of this judicial record/ offence,o theo natureo ofo theo caseo launchedo againsto the CWP-16365-2023 oooooooo5 2023:PHHC:155197o employeeoonotheobasisoofoevidenceoandomaterialocollected againstohimoduringoinvestigationooroasoreflectedoinothe chargeosheet.o

(iv) Theofactorsomentionedoato(ii)oando(iii)oaboveocannot beo consideredo ino isolationo too stayo theo Departmental proceedingsobutodueoregardohasotoobeogivenotootheofact thato theo departmentalo proceedingso cannoto beo unduly delayed.o

(v) Ifotheocriminalocaseodoesonotoproceedooroitsodisposalois beingo undulyo delayed,o theo departmentalo proceedings, evenoifotheyowereostayedoonoaccountoofotheopendencyoof theocriminalocase,ocanobeoresumedoandoproceededowithoso aso too concludeo themo ato ano earlyo date,o soo thato ifo the employeeo iso foundo noto guiltyo hiso honouro mayo be vindicatedoandoinocaseoheoisofoundoguilty,oadministration mayogetoridoofohimoatotheoearliest." A perusal of the above judgment would show that the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering various judgments had drawn the conclusion which was given in the abovesaid paragraph. It was held that the departmental proceedings and the proceedings in the criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there was no bar in their being conducted simultaneously. It was further held that departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings if based on identical and similar set of facts and also in case the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of grave nature whichoinvolvesocomplicatedoquestionsoofolawoandofact, then in such circumstances, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. Thus,oallotheoingredients i.e.,oaverments/oallegationsobeingoidentical,obasedoonosimilarosetoofofactsoand theochargeobeingoofoograveonatureoinvolvingocomplicatedoquestionsoofolaw authenticity of this judicial reacnordd/ ofactoareorequiredotoobeometosooasotooconsiderotheocaseoofotheoemployee CWP-16365-2023 oooooooo6 2023:PHHC:155197o foro granto ofo stay. In sub clause (iii), reference has been made that the evidence and the material collected during investigation or as reflected in the charge sheet is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of considering as to whether the nature of charge in the criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of law and fact are involved in the case or not. Importantly,oasoper suboclauseo(iv)oevenoinoaoparticularocaseowhereoit isofoundothatoingredientsoofosuboclauseo(ii)oando(iii)odooexist,oevenothenothe sameo cannoto beo consideredo ino isolation,o too stayo theo departmental proceedings,o buto furthero regardo haso too beo giveno too theo facto thato the departmentalo proceedingso cannoto beo undulyo delayed. Sub clause (v) specifically provides that if the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, then even in case stay has been granted, with respect to the departmental proceedings, the same can be resumed and proceededowith.o

¶7Similarly, in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "IndianoOverseasoBank,oAnnaoSalaioandoAnr. vs. P.Ganesanoand others", reported as 2008(1) SCC 650 it had been specifically observed that the High Court was apart from other considerations also required to consider as to whether the matter involves complicated questions of law. Theorelevantoportionoofotheosaidojudgmentoisoreproducedohereinbelow:- "11. Writ appeals preferred by the appellants against that order were disposed of by a Division Bench of the Court by reasonoofotheoimpugnedojudgmentoopiningo:-o

¶14Ino theo instanto case,o thereo iso noo disputeo thato the criminalo actiono ando theo disciplinaryo proceedingso are foundedo upono theo sameo seto ofo facts.o Ino fact,o the disciplinaryo proceedingso areo solelyo basedo upono the criminalo complainto lodgedo byo theo Presidento ofo ao rival 2023.12.08 17:39 union,owhooisoalsoofacingoprosecutionowithoregardotoothe CWP-16365-2023 oooooooo7 2023:PHHC:155197o sameoincident.oItohasobeenoconcededobeforeousothatothe Bankohadonotoconductedoanyoindependentoenquiryobefore initiatingotheoimpugnedodepartmentaloproceedings.o

¶15In our opinion, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case on hand, fair play requires postponingo ofo theo departmentalo proceedingso tillo the criminalo caseso areo decided.o Weo are,o therefore,o ofo the viewothatotheoprayeromadeobyotheopetitionersoforodeferring theodepartmentaloproceedingsotillotheoconclusionoofothe criminalo trialo haso too beo acceptedo ando ito iso ordered accordingly. xxx xxx xxx

¶18Legalo positiono operatingo ino theo fieldo iso noo longero res integra. Ao departmentalo proceedingso pendingo ao criminal proceedingsodoesonotowarrantoanoautomaticostay.oTheosuperior courtso beforeo exercisingo itso discretionaryo jurisdictiono ino this regardomustotakeointooconsiderationotheofactoasotoowhetherothe chargeso aso alsoo theo evidenceo ino botho theo proceedingso are coommonoao nd as to whether any complicated question of law iso involvedoinotheomatter. xxx xxx xxx

¶22The issue came up for consideration yet again in T. Srinivas (supra) where this Court while analyzing B.K. Meena (supra)oandoCapt.oM.oPauloAnthonyo(supra)oheldothato:-o "10. From the above, it is clear that the advisability, desirability or propriety, as the case may be, in regard to a departmental enquiry has to be determined in each case taking into consideration all facts and circumstances of the case. Thisojudgmentoalsoolaysodown thatotheostayoofodepartmentaloproceedingsocannotobeoand shouldonotobeoaomatteroofocourse."o

¶23The High Court, unfortunately, although it 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 2023.12.08 17:39 view in concluding that the stay of the departmental CWP-16365-2023 oooooooo8 2023:PHHC:155197o 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. Whatowasonecessaryotoobe noticedobyotheoHighoCourtowasonotoonlyoexistenceoofoidentical factsoandotheoevidenceoinotheomatter,oitowasoalsoorequiredoto takeointooconsiderationotheoquestionoasotoowhetherotheocharges levelledo againsto theo delinquento officers,o bothoino theo criminal caseo aso alsoo theo disciplinaryo proceedings,o wereo same. FurthermoreoitowasoobligatoryoonotheopartoofotheoHighoCourtoto arriveo ato ao findingo thato theo nono stayo ofo theo disciplinary po roceedings shall not only prejudice the delinquent officersobo uto theomatteroalsooinvolvesoaocomplicatedoquestionoofolaw." In the above-said case, the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court had disposed of the appeals on the ground that there was no dispute of the fact that the criminal action and the disciplinary proceedings were founded on the same set of facts and that disciplinary proceedings were solely based upon the criminal complaint lodged by the President of a rival union and that the Bank had not conducted any independent enquiry before initiating the impugned departmental proceedings and thus, the departmental proceedings were postponed till the time the criminal cases were decided. The said order was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court byomakingotheoobservationsowhichohaveobeenoreproducedohereinabove.o

¶8The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "KendriyaoVidyalaya Sangathanoo&oOrs. Vs. T.Srinivas", reported as 2004(7) SCC 442, had observed that there should be special facts in a case so as to persuade the Court to stay departmental proceedings and every case where departmental proceedings and criminal trial with regard to the same misconduct is pending, is not to be stayed. It was also observed in the said judgment that Davinder Kumar the approach and the objective of the criminal proceedings and the CWP-16365-2023 oooooooo9 2023:PHHC:155197o disciplinary proceedings are altogether distinct and different inasmuch as in the disciplinary proceedings, the question is whether the employee is guilty of such conduct as would merit his removal from service or a lesser punishment as the case may be, whereas in the criminal proceedings, the question is whether the offences which the employee is alleged to have committed, are established or not, and if so established, the sentence to be imposed. It was further observed that the standard of proof, the mode of enquiry and the rules governing the enquiry and the trial in both the cases are distinct and different. In the said case, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that two articles of charge in the criminal proceedings and the departmental proceedings were identical and the third charge was inter connected and accordingly, the Tribunal had stayed the departmental proceedings till the time the applicant therein disclosed his defence in the criminal trial. The writ petition against the said order was also dismissed and the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the law on the point, set aside the said orders and observed that the Tribunal and the High Court had proceeded on an erroneous principle to the effect that grant of stay of disciplinary proceedings is a must in every case where there is a criminal trial on the same charges. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproducedohereinbelow:-

4.o The respondent herein challenged the said decision of the appellants to hold a departmental enquiry while a criminal trial on identical facts was pending against him before a competent court. This challenge was made before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad. The Tribunalobyoitsoorderodatedo2.7.2003ocameotootheoconclusion thatotheofirstotwooarticlesoofochargesoareoidenticalotootheocharge levelledoagainstotheopetitionerobeforeotheoSpecialoCourtounder 2023.12.08 17:39 tohe provisions of the oPo revention of Corruption Actoo and theo CWP-16365-2023 oooooooo10 2023:PHHC:155197o thirdoArticle of charge though not a subject matter of the trial isoanointer-connectedochargeowithoChargeso1oando2,ohenceoit allowedo theo applicationo ofo theo respondento ando directedo the appellanto thato proceedingso pursuanto too theo chargeo memoo be stayedotillotheoapplicantodisclosesohisodefenceoinotheopending criminalotrial. It, however gave permission to the appellant to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings after the disclosure of the defence by the respondent whichoinoeffectowouldomean thatotheodisciplinaryoproceedingsowillostandostayedoalmostotill theodisposaloofotheotrialobeforeotheocriminalocourt. xxx xxx xxx

¶11In the instant case, from the order of the Tribunal as also from the impugned order of the High Court, weodoonotofind thatotheotwooforumsobelowohaveoconsideredotheospecialofactsoof thiso caseo whicho persuadedo themo too stayo theo departmental po roceedings.oo On the contrary, reading of the two impugnedo orderso indicateso thato botho theo Tribunalo ando theo Higho Court proceededoasoifoaodepartmentaloenquiryo hadotoo beo stayedoin everyo caseo whereo ao criminalo trialo ino regardo too theo same misconducto iso pending.o Neithero theo Tribunalo noro theo High Courtodidotakeointooconsiderationotheoseriousnessoofotheocharge whichopertainsotooacceptanceoofoillegalogratificationoandothe desirabilityoofocontinuingotheorespondentoinoserviceoinspiteoof suchoseriousochargesolevelledoagainstohim.oThisoCourtoinothe saidocaseoofoStateoofoRajasthano(supra)ohasofurtheroobserved thatotheoapproachoandotheoobjectiveoinotheocriminaloproceedings ando theo disciplinaryo proceedingso iso altogethero distincto and different.o Ito heldo thato ino theo disciplinaryo proceedingso the questionoisowhetherotheorespondentoisoguiltyoofosuchoconductoas wouldomeritohisoremovalofromoserviceooroaolesseropunishment, asotheocaseomayobe,owhereasoinotheocriminaloproceedingsothe questiono iso whethero theo offenceso registeredo againsto himo are establishedo and,o ifo established,o whato sentenceo shouldo be imposedouponohim.oTheoCourtoinotheoaboveocaseofurtheronoted thatotheostandardoofoproof,otheomodeoofoenquiryoandotheorulesDavinder Kumar CWP-16365-2023 oooooooo11 2023:PHHC:155197o governingotheoenquiryoandotrialoinobothotheocasesoareodistinct andodifferent. On that basis, in the case of State of Rajasthan (supra) the facts which seem to be almost similar to the facts of this case, held that the Tribunal fell in error in staying the disciplinaryoproceedings. xxx xxx xxx

¶14WeoareoofotheoopinionothatobothotheotribunaloandotheoHigh Courto proceededo ono ano erroneouso legalo principleo without takingointooconsiderationotheofactsoandocircumstancesoofothis caseoandoproceededoasoifotheostayoofodisciplinaryoproceedingsois aomustoinoeveryocaseowhereothereoisoaocriminalotrialoonotheovery sameocharges……"

¶9The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "StateoBankoofoIndiaoandoOrs. vs. NeelamoNagoandoAnr., reported as 2016(9) SCC 491, had observed 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. Itoisowell-settledothatothereoisonoolegalobar too theo conducto ofo theo disciplinaryo proceedingso ando criminal trialosimultaneously.oHowever,ono 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 beenodelineatedoinoaoseriesoofodecisions.o

¶14This Court in Karnataka SRTC vs. M.G.Vittal Rao

(2012) 1 SCC 442 has summed up the same in the following words:o "(i) Thereoisonoolegalobaroforobothotheoproceedings toogooonosimultaneously.o

(ii) 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. Buto even sucho groundso wouldo beo availableo onlyo ino casesDavinder Kumar CWP-16365-2023 oooooooo12 2023:PHHC:155197o involvingocomplexoquestionsoofofactsoorolaw.o

(iii) Sucho defenceo oughto noto too beo permittedo to unnecessarilyodelayotheodepartmentaloproceedings. Theointerestoofotheodelinquentoofficeroasowelloasothe employeroclearlyoliesoinoaopromptoconclusionoofothe disciplinaryoproceedings.

(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. (emphasisosupplied)"o In the above judgment, apart from reiterating the fact that it is a matter of settled law that there is no legal bar on conducting the disciplinary proceedings and criminal trial simultaneously, reliance was also placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karnataka SRTC vs. M.G. Vittal Rao, in which it was observed that the ground for seeking stay would be available only in cases involving complex questions of law and facts and whereotheodepartmentaloproceedingsowereonotobeingounnecessarilyodelayed.o

¶10Thus, a perusal of the above said judgments would show that apart from other factors, one of the primary factor which the Court is to consider before even considering as to whether the stay of departmental proceedings is to be granted in a particular case or not or as to whether the evidence of the witnesses in the departmental proceedings is to be kept in abeyance till their examination in the criminal case, is to see as to whether complicated questions of law and facts are involved in the case or not. In the present case, no complicated question of law or fact, has been brought to the notice of this Court. The issue which arises for consideration in the criminal case is as to whether the petitioner had forcibly made physical CWP-16365-2023 oooooooo13 2023:PHHC:155197o relations with the complainant and used to forcibly rape her without her consent and also exploit her and had also duped her of Rs.9,35,000/- and threatened to defame and kill her regarding which it is the case of the complainant that she has recordings in her mobile phone and whatsapp chats. In the said circumstances, it cannot be said that any complicated question of law or fact arises. Moreover, no judgment has been cited before this Court to show that in such a situation complicated question of law or fact would arise. Moreover, this Court has found that there are no special facts in the present case so as to persuade this Court to grant the relief sought, rather the allegation against the petitioner are of rape, sexual exploitation, blackmailing, embezzlement of money and extending threats to the complainant. In the present case, neither the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. nor the charges in the criminal case have been placed on record nor any list of witnesses in the criminal proceedings has been annexed and thus, it cannot be stated with certainty as to who are the common witnesses and as to whether the charges in both the proceedings are same. Moreover, it is not in dispute that the star witness in the present case, who is the complainant, has been examined in both the proceedings i.e., departmental proceedings as well as in the criminal case. Even argument of learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that in case common witnesses are examined then prejudice would be caused to the case of the petitioner, is also misconceived inasmuch as in the present case, the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has already been submitted and the statements of all the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have already been recorded and a copy of the same has been given to the accused and the prosecution in order to prove the guilt, would have to rely upon the statements recorded under 2023.12.08 17:39 Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and thus, the CWP-16365-2023 oooooooo14 2023:PHHC:155197o question of prejudice does not arise. At any rate, as has been held above, there is no complicated question of law and facts involved in the present case.

¶11The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in "Dr.Balwinder KumaroSharma vs. Hon'bleoPunjaboandoHaryanaoHighoCourtothrough RegistraroGeneral, CWP-7539-2021, decided on 28.05.2021 has held as under:- "Theo reasono foro initiationo ando earlyo conclusiono of departmentaloproceedingsoinosuchocasesoseemsotoobeothree-fold:

(i)o Too weedo outo ano employeeo whoseo integrityo / charactero haso beeno puto too doubt,o primao facie,o on accountoofosomeocriminaloproceedingsohavingobeen initiatedoagainstohim/her.

(ii) At the same time, when an employee is suspended, he/she is entitled to atleast half of the pay that it was drawing before being suspended and thus,o anyo inordinateo delayo ino conclusiono of departmentalo proceedings,o whereo chargeso areo of veryo seriouso nature,o wouldo unnecessarilyo entail burdenoonoexchequeroandothusowillobeoagainstopublic interest.o

(iii)o Theo departmentalo proceedingso iso too maintain disciplineo ino theo serviceo ando efficiencyo ofo public serviceo ando thus,o itso initiationo ando conclusiono as expeditiouslyoasopossibleoisoinopublicointerest. In the present case, it is not disputed that challan was presented in the year 2019 and charges were framed on

31.01.2020 (P-11), however till date no progress has been made in the criminal trial on account of one reason or the other. Although,otheodelayoinocriminalotrialocannotobeoattributed tootheopetitioner,oatotheosameotime,otheodepartmentocannotobe expectedotoowaitoendlesslyoforotheotrialotooconclude as held in Davinder Kumar Capt.oM.oPauloAnthony'socaseo(supra). CWP-16365-2023 oooooooo15 2023:PHHC:155197o xxx xxx xxx Further, it is to be noted that charges under Sections 409, 420, 120-B and 201 IPC have been framed on the basis of documentary and other evidence collected by the SIT during the course of investigation. How the paper was leaked and the manner it was further supplied for prosecution / Department to prove, which otherwise is within the special knowledge of the accused. Therefore,othereoisonooquestionoofoanyodisclosureoof defenceoinotheodepartmentaloproceedings.oAsofaroasotheovarious po rovisions of oPo revention of Corruption Acto,o 1988 areo concerned,o mosto ofo theo provisionso areo too beo provedo byo the prosecutiono duringo theo courseo ofo trialo excepto theo one concerningo"knownosourcesoofoincome", which again is within the special knowledge of accused-petitioner. Hence,o there seemsotoobeonoojustificationoinotheoprayeromadeobyopetitionerofor stayingoofodisciplinaryoproceedings."o In the abovesaid judgment, the reasons for early conclusion of departmental proceedings have been highlighted and it has been further observed that the department cannot wait endlessly for the criminal trial to conclude irrespective of the fact that the delay in the criminal trial is attributed to the employee or not. It is further observed in the said case that an early conclusion of the departmental proceedings was necessary in order to weed out an employee whose integrity / character has been put to doubt on account of initiation of criminal proceedings and since the purpose of the said proceedings is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. It was also observed that during the pendency of the said proceedings, since the employee is suspended, thus, the said employee would get some part of pay without doing work which would amount to unnecessarily entailing burden on the exchequer and would be against CWP-16365-2023 oooooooo16 2023:PHHC:155197o

¶12The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in LPA-239-2022 titled as "ParamjitoKaur Vs. PunjaboandoSindoBankoandoothers" decided ono24.03.2022ohadoheldoasounder:- "2. The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the facts of the case as well as the decision of the Supreme Court, relied upon by the appellant, in Captain M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines, 1999(3) SCC 679, dismissed her petition, upono reachingo ao conclusiono thato decisiono in Captaino M.o Paulo Anthonyo (supra)o doeso noto layo downo any absoluteo principleo ofo lawo thato ino allo thoseo caseso whereo a criminalotrialoisopending,otheodepartmentaloproceedingsomustobe keptoinoabeyance.oRather,otheoquestion,owhether,oinotheogiven situation,o theo departmentalo proceedingso areo requiredo too be stayed,o wouldo beo determinedo takingo intoo accounto multiple factors:oifotheodepartmentaloproceedingsoandocriminalotrialoare basedoonosimilarosetoofofacts;otheochargeoinotheocriminalotrial againsto theo delinquento employeeo iso ofo ao graveo natureo and involvedocomplicatedoquestionsoofolawoandofact. Whereas, upon due consideration of the matter in issue, the learned Single Judge recorded that it was not the case in the matter at hands. It was observed that the charges against the appellant in the departmental proceedings were that she had been siphoning off the funds/amount from the accounts of the bank's customers in the name of her own relatives since 2005. Further, upon being confronted with this fact, she has made three deposits refunding certain amount. And, significantly, the learned Single Judge also recorded that the entire material that was to be relied upon and produced against the appellant was documentary in nature and was either prepared by her or underoherosupervision,obeingoManageroofotheobranch.o xxx xxx xxx

¶5Uponobeingopointedlyo asked,o ifotheochargeso haveo been framedoinotheocriminalotrialoagainstotheoappellantoand,oifoyes, whethero theo chargeo sheeto waso produced/placedo beforeo the I attest to the accuracy and learnedo Singleo Judge?o Learnedo counselo fairlyo concedeso that CWP-16365-2023 oooooooo17 2023:PHHC:155197o thoughochargesohaveoalreadyobeenoframedobutotheochargeosheet waso noto placedo beforeo theo learnedo Singleo Judge.o Ino such circumstances,oitoisoevidentothatotheocontentionoofotheoappellant thatobasisoofotheodepartmentaloproceedingsoandocriminalotrialois theo same,o iso neithero substantiatedo noro established.o Even otherwise,o aso indicatedo above,o theo chargeso againsto the appellanto areo basedo ono recordo ando doo noto involveo any complicatedo questionso ofo lawo ando facts,o leasto ao chargeo that couldobeotermedoasograve." A perusal of the above judgment would show that the charges/charge sheet in the criminal case was not placed before the learned Single Judge and that thus, the contention of the appellant therein that the basis of the departmental proceedings and criminal trial were the same, was neither substantiated nor established. It was also observed that in the said circumstances,onoocomplicatedoquestionsoofolawoandofactsowereoinvolved.

¶13In the present case also as has been stated hereinabove, neither the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. nor the order of framing of charges in the criminal case has been placed on record and thus, the principle of law as laidodownoinotheoabovesaidojudgmentsowouldoalsooapplyoinotheopresentocase

¶14Keeping in view the abovesaid facts & circumstances and the law laid down in the above-said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this Court, the present writ petition deserves to beodismissedoandoisoaccordinglyodismissed. (VIKASoBAHL) oooooooooooooooooooJUDGE Decembero05,o2023. DavinderoKumar Whetherospeakingo/oreasoned Yes/No Whetheroreportable Yes/No