Rakesh Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others

CWP-28251-2023 oooooooo1 2023:PHHC:161107o INoTHEooHIGHoCOURToOFoPUNJABo&oHARYANAoAT CHANDIGARH *** oCWP-28251-2023 Dateoofodecisiono:o15.12.2023 RakeshoKumaro ...oPetitionero Versus StateoofoHaryanaoandoothers ...oRespondents CORAM:o HON'BLEoMR.oJUSTICEoVIKASoBAHL Present:o Mr.ParveshoK.oSaini,oAdvocateo forotheopetitioner.o 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 order dated 05.09.2023 (Annexure P-5) and notice dated

11.09.2023 (Annexure P-6) issued by the respondents for initiating the departmental enquiry against the petitioner. A prayer has made in the writ petition for directing the official respondents not to proceed with the departmental enquiry against the petitioner till the pendency of the criminal trial in FIR no.22 dated 24.08.2023 registered under Section 384 IPC and Sectiono7oofotheoPreventionoofoCorruptionoAct,o1988.o

¶2Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner was working as Head Constable and was posted at Hisar when, on a complaint filed by Suresh Kumar, FIR no.22 dated 24.08.2023 under Section 384 IPC and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at Anti Corruption Bureau, Haryana (Annexure P-2) was registered against the petitioner on 2023.12.22 15:46 the allegations that there was a dispute between Suresh Kumar and Pardeep CWP-28251-2023 oooooooo2 2023:PHHC:161107o on account of which, proceedings under Section 107, 151 Cr.P.C. had been initiated and on 23.08.2023, the said two persons were produced before the SDM, Hisar and thereafter on 24.08.2023, the petitioner, who was posted at Police Station Sadar Hisar, had told the complainant that he would implicate the complainant in a case of abduction and in case he pays the money to the petitioner then he will not register a case of abduction against him and in the evening, the petitioner made a phone call to the complainant asking him to pay him money and thereafter, the complainant called the petitioner to state that he has been able to get an amount of Rs.10,000/- and the remaining amount of Rs.15,000/- would be paid the next morning. It was further alleged that the petitioner had told the complainant that he would personally come to collect the money and that the petitioner was asking for bribe of Rs.25,000/-, failing which he was threatening the complainant that he would register an FIR against him with respect to the offence of abduction. It was stated in the FIR that the complainant had recorded the conversation with the petitioner. On the basis of the said allegations, FIR was registered and a raid was conducted. Challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been filed, although the same is not annexed along with the present petition but a perusal of the order dated 10.11.2023 (Annexure P-3) vide which the petitioner was granted the concession of regular bail would show that the petitioner was caught red handed by the Anti Corruption Bureau, Hisar with Rs.10,000/- which he had demanded from the complainant. The plea of the Public Prosecutor to the effect that there were records of call detail and transcripts of conversation recorded between the complainant and the petitioner was also noticed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that in the present case on 2023.12.22 15:46 11.12.2023, charges have been framed in the criminal case although the said CWP-28251-2023 oooooooo3 2023:PHHC:161107o order is not available yet. Vide order dated 05.09.2023, the Superintendent of Police, Hisar, had appointed DSP, Hisar as Enquiry Officer and directed him to conduct a regular departmental enquiry against the petitioner by holding day to day proceedings. The statement of allegations dated

11.09.2023 (Annexure P-6) in the departmental proceedings would show that there are serious allegations against the petitioner demanding bribe from the complainant Suresh Kumar for not implicating him in a false case and thus, the said act was stated to be a serious dereliction of his governmentoduty.

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, till the time the common witnesses in the departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings are not examined, the departmental proceedings be kept in abeyance as in case the said witnesses are examined in the departmental proceedings, then the defence of the petitioner would be disclosed and the same would cause prejudice to the petitioner. 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.oPaul Anthony Vs. Bharato Goldo Mineso Ltd.", reported as 1999(3) SCC 679. Further reference has been made to the interim order 18.05.2023 (Annexure P-9) passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court and learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that as far as the interim order dated

13.08.2020 (Annexure P-8) passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court is concerned,otheosaidowritopetitionohasobeenowithdrawn.

¶4This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner 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 2023.12.22 15:46 hereinafter.o CWP-28251-2023 oooooooo4 2023:PHHC:161107o

¶5Before 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 offence,o theo natureo ofo theo caseo launchedo againsto the employeeoonotheobasisoofoevidenceoandomaterialocollected againstohimoduringoinvestigationooroasoreflectedoinothe chargeosheet.o

(iv) Theofactorsomentionedoato(ii)oando(iii)oaboveocannot I attest to the accuracy and beo consideredo ino isolationo too stayo theo Departmental CWP-28251-2023 oooooooo5 2023:PHHC:161107o 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 andofactoareorequiredotoobeometosooasotooconsiderotheocaseoofotheoemployee 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 CWP-28251-2023 oooooooo6 2023:PHHC:161107o considering as to whether the nature of charge in the criminal case is grave in nature and 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

¶6Similarly, 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, apart from other considerations, was 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 union,owhooisoalsoofacingoprosecutionowithoregardotoothe sameoincident.oItohasobeenoconcededobeforeousothatothe bankohadonotoconductedoanyoindependentoenquiryobefore initiatingotheoimpugnedodepartmentaloproceedings.o I attest to the accuracy and 15. In our opinion, in the peculiar facts and CWP-28251-2023 oooooooo7 2023:PHHC:161107o circumstances of the case on hand, fair play requires thatopostponingoofotheodepartmentaloproceedingsotillothe 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 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, Davinder Kumar therefore, misdirected itself in law. Whatowasonecessaryotoobe CWP-28251-2023 oooooooo8 2023:PHHC:161107o 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 regarding the fact that the criminal action and disciplinary proceedings were founded on the same set of facts and that the 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

¶7The 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 the departmental proceedings and every case where departmental proceedings and criminal trial with regard to the same misconduct are pending, are not to be stayed. It was also observed in the said judgment that the approach and the objective of the criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings are altogether distinct and different inasmuch as in the disciplinary proceedings, the question is Davinder Kumar whether the employee is guilty of such conduct as would merit his removal CWP-28251-2023 oooooooo9 2023:PHHC:161107o 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 judgmentoisoreproducedohereinbelow:-

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 tribunalobyoitsoorderodatedo2.7.2003o cameotootheo conclusion thatotheofirstotwooArticlesoofochargesoareoidenticalotootheocharge levelledoagainstotheopetitionerobeforeotheospecialocourtounder tohe provisions of the oPo revention of Corruption Actoo and theo thirdoArticle of charge though not a subject matter of the trial isoanointer-connectedochargeowithochargeso1oando2,ohenceoit allowedo theo applicationo ofo theo respondento ando directedo the 2023.12.22 15:46 appellanto thato proceedingso pursuanto too theo chargeo memoo be CWP-28251-2023 oooooooo10 2023:PHHC:161107o 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 misconductoisopending.oNeitherotheotribunalonorotheoHighoCourt didotakeointooconsiderationotheoseriousnessoofotheochargeowhich pertainso too acceptanceo ofo illegalo gratificationo ando the desirabilityo ofo continuingo theo appellanto ino serviceo inspiteo of 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,otheomodeoofoenquiryoandotheorules governingotheoenquiryoandotrialoinobothotheocasesoareodistinct andodifferent. On that basis, in the case of State of Rajasthan the facts which seems to be almost similar to the facts of this case held that the tribunal fell in error in staying theDavinder Kumar CWP-28251-2023 oooooooo11 2023:PHHC:161107o disciplinaryoproceedings. xxx xxx xxx

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

¶8The 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 cases involvingocomplexoquestionsoofofactsoorolaw.o

(iii) Sucho defenceo oughto noto too beo permittedo to unnecessarilyodelayotheodepartmentaloproceedings. Theointerestoofotheodelinquentoofficeroasowelloasothe employeroclearlyoliesoinoaopromptoconclusionoofothe disciplinaryoproceedings. Davinder Kumar (iv) Departmental proceedings can go on I attest to the accuracy and simultaneously to the criminal trial, except where CWP-28251-2023 oooooooo12 2023:PHHC:161107o 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 Thus, a perusal of the above said judgments would show that apart from other factors, one of the primary factors which the Court has to consider before 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 whether any complicated questions of law and facts are involved in the case or not. In the present case, no complicated question of law or facts, 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 demanded bribe from the complainant for not implicating the complainant in a case of abduction and as to whether the petitioner was caught red handed by the Anti Corruption Bureau, Hisar with the said amount of Rs.10,000/- regarding which as per the case of prosecution, a recorded conversation is also there. In the said circumstances, it cannot be said that any complicated question of law or fact arises. 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 authenticity of this judicial reCcoord/urt has found that there are no special facts in the present case so as to CWP-28251-2023 oooooooo13 2023:PHHC:161107o persuade this Court to grant the relief sought, rather the allegations against the petitioner are that he had sought bribe and was caught red handed by the Anti Corruption Bureau. Even the 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, 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 Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and thus, the question of prejudice does not arise. At any rate, as has been held above, there is no complicated questionoofolawoandofactsoinvolvedoinotheopresentocase.

¶9The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in "Dr.Balwinder Kumaro Sharma vs. Hon'bleo Punjabo ando Haryanao Higho Courto through Registraro General, 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 2023.12.22 15:46 burdenoonoexchequeroandothusowillobeoagainstopublic CWP-28251-2023 oooooooo14 2023:PHHC:161107o 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 Capt.oM.oPauloAnthony'socaseo(supra). 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 whether the delay in the criminal trial is CWP-28251-2023 oooooooo15 2023:PHHC:161107o attributed to the employee or not. It was 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 againstopublicointerest.o

¶10In the present case, it would be relevant to note that although list of witnesses in the departmental proceedings has been annexed but no list of witnesses in the criminal case has been annexed and thus, it cannot be ascertained as to who are the common witnesses. Reliance which has been placed upon the interim order dated 18.05.2023 (Annexure P-9) would also not further the case of the petitioner inasmuch as the same is only an interim order and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, which has been considered by this Court in the abovesaid judgments, has not been considered in the said order. With respect to interim order dated 13.08.2020 (Annexure P-8), learned counsel for the petitioner has very fairly submitted that the main writ petition has been withdrawn. It would also be relevant to note that this Court has taken a similar view in CWP-16365-2023 titled as "Ashok Kumarovs.oStateoofoHaryanaoandoothers"odecidedoono05.12.2023.

¶11The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in LPA-239-2022 titled as "ParamjitoKaur Vs. PunjaboandoSindoBankoandoothers" decided 2023.12.22 15:46 ono24.03.2022ohadoheldoasounder:- CWP-28251-2023 oooooooo16 2023:PHHC:161107o "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, uponoreachingoaoconclusionothat decisiono ino Captaino M.o Paulo Anthonyo (supra)o doeso noto layo downo any absoluteoprincipleoofolawothatoinoallothoseocasesowhereoaocriminalotrialois pending,otheodepartmentaloproceedingsomustobeokeptoinoabeyance.oRather, theoquestion,owhether,oinotheogivenosituation,otheodepartmentaloproceedings areo requiredo too beo stayed,o wouldo beo determinedo takingo intoo account multipleofactors:oifotheodepartmentaloproceedingsoandocriminalotrialoare basedoonosimilarosetoofofacts;otheochargeoinotheocriminalotrialoagainstothe delinquento employeeo iso ofo ao graveo natureo ando involvedo complicated questionsoofolawoandofact. 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 under her supervision,obeingoManageroofotheobranch.o xxx xxx xxx

¶5Uponobeingopointedlyoasked,oifotheochargesohaveobeenoframedoinothe criminalotrialoagainstotheoappellantoand,oifoyes,owhetherotheochargeosheet wasoproduced/placedobeforeotheolearnedoSingleoJudge?oLearnedocounsel fairlyo concedeso thato thougho chargeso haveo alreadyo beenoframedo buto the chargeo sheeto waso noto placedo beforeo theo learnedo Singleo Judge.o Ino such circumstances,oitoisoevidentothatotheocontentionoofotheoappellantothatobasis ofotheodepartmentaloproceedingsoandocriminalotrialoisotheosame,oisoneither substantiatedo noro established.o Eveno otherwise,o aso indicatedo above,o the chargesoagainstotheoappellantoareobasedoonorecordoandodoonotoinvolveoany complicatedo questionso ofo lawo ando facts,o leasto ao chargeo thato couldo be termedoasograve."o 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 thus, the contention of the appellant therein that the basis of the departmental proceedings and criminal trial were the same, was CWP-28251-2023 oooooooo17 2023:PHHC:161107o neither substantiated nor established. It was also observed that in the said circumstance, no complicated questions of law and facts were involved. In the present case, although the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been filed and the charges have been framed as per the stand taken by learned counsel for the petitioner but neither the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. nor charges are on record and thus, the law laid down in the above said judgmentowouldoalsooapplyoinotheopresentocase.

¶12Keeping in view the abovesaid facts & circumstances and the law laid down in the above-said judgments, the present writ petition deservesotoobeodismissedoandoisoaccordinglyodismissed. (VIKASoBAHL) oooooooooooooooooooJUDGE Decembero15,o2023. DavinderoKumar Whetherospeakingo/oreasoned Yes/No Whetheroreportable Yes/No