Anand Bakshi v. State of Haryana and Anr

CWP-26062-2023 oooooooo1 2023:PHHC:147064o INoTHEooHIGHoCOURToOFoPUNJABo&oHARYANAoAT CHANDIGARH *** ooooooCWP-26062-2023 Dateoofodecisiono:o20.11.2023 AnandoBakshi ...oPetitionero Versus StateoofoHaryanaoandoothers ...oRespondents CORAM:o HON'BLEoMR.oJUSTICEoVIKASoBAHL Present:o Mr.KushagraoBeniwal,oAdvocateoforotheopetitioner. Ms.oRajnioGupta,oAddl.A.G.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 of the order dated 31.08.2023 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra-respondent no.2 whereby departmental enquiry against the petitioner has been ordered by holding day toodayoproceedings.

¶2The brief facts of the present case, as emanates from the averments made in the petition and also the documents which have been annexed with the present petition, are that the petitioner is an employee in Haryana Police Department and is working on the post of Exemptee Assistant Sub Inspector (EASI) and was posted at Kurukshetra Highway as Incharge of Bolero no.3 and FIR no.22 dated 30.08.2023 was registered against the petitioner by the District Anti Corruption Bureau Haryana at Police Station ACB, Ambala under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the allegation that one Sahib Singh had made a complaint that he was doing work of providing commercial vehicles to the DAVINDER KUMAR businessmen from transporters and he used to take commission for CWP-26062-2023 oooooooo2 2023:PHHC:147064o providing the said vehicles and that on 25.08.2023 at night, a vehicle which was taken on rent from the transporters by the complainant and was loaded with liquor, was stopped on the Pipli Highway, District Kurukshetra by the PCR Police deputed on the road and the driver of the said vehicle informed the complainant about the same and thereafter, the complainant sent his friend Sumit son of Ranbir to Kurukshetra where the Incharge of PCR-3 met him and told him that his name was Anand (petitioner) and the petitioner demanded Rs.15,000/- as bribe to set the vehicle free and that Sumit, the friend of the complainant, used his UPI from his mobile at Jai Filling Station, Kurukshetra and after getting hard cash, handed over bribe money to the PCR Incharge (petitioner). It is further alleged in the complaint that on the day of the complaint, the complainant and his friend Sumit were going to Ambala for personal work but they stopped at Prince Dhaba and the PCR Incharge (petitioner) met the complainant and asked him to give Rs.30,000/- as bribe for getting his overloaded vehicles pass through Highway and insisted on payment of the said bribe and since the complainant did not wish to give the said bribe, thus, he filed the complaint, on the basis of which, the FIR was registered. In the FIR, reference was made to the raid conducted and it is not in dispute before this Court that as per the case of the prosecution, petitioner was caught red handed while accepting bribe of Rs.30,000/-. The Investigation in the FIR is pending and the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has not been submitted as yet. It is further the case of the petitioner that vide order dated 31.08.2023 (Annexure P-3), the Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra has initiated departmental enquiry against the petitioner and has also placed the petitioner under suspension and the said departmental enquiry has been entrusted to the 2023.11.23 09:50 DSP, Kurukshetra. The notice of accusation (Annexure P-4) has been CWP-26062-2023 oooooooo3 2023:PHHC:147064o served upon the petitioner with respect to initiating the departmental proceedingsoagainstotheopetitioner.

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that his limited prayer in the present petition is that the common witnesses in the departmental proceedings and the FIR be not examined in the departmental proceedings till the time they are examined in the criminal case as their examination would cause prejudice to the petitioner, inasmuch as in case the said witnesses are examined in the departmental proceedings then the defence of the petitioner would be disclosed while cross-examining the said witnesses in the departmental proceedings. In support of the said argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as "Capt.oM.oPauloAnthony Vs. BharatoGold Mineso Ltd.", reported as 1999(3) SCC 679. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred to a list (Annexure P-5) to show that the witnesses from serial no. 6 to 9 in the departmental proceedings would be the common witnesses inasmuch as it is certain that the said witnesses would also be made as witnesses in the criminal proceedings although report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has not been submitted in the Court till date.

¶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 hereinafter.o

¶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 2023.11.23 09:50 counsel for the petitioner. In the said judgment and also in various other CWP-26062-2023 oooooooo4 2023:PHHC:147064o judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it has been repeatedly held that one of the necessary ingredients for the Court to consider before any stay of departmental proceedings is granted, with respect to the issue in hand, is as to whether the case involves complicated question of law and facts or not. Paragraph 22 of the judgment in Capt.oM.oPauloAnthony's case (supra) is reproducedohereinbelow:- "22. The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Courtoreferredotooaboveoareo:o

(i) Departmentaloproceedingsoandoproceedingsoinoaocriminalocase cano proceedo simultaneouslyo aso thereo iso noo baro ino theiro being conductedosimultaneously,othoughoseparately.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 whichoinvolvesocomplicatedoquestionsoofolawoandofact,oitowouldobe desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion ofotheocriminalocase.o

(iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is graveoand whetherocomplicatedoquestionsoofofactoandolawoareoinvolvedoinothat case,owillodependouponotheonatureoofooffence,otheonatureoofotheocase launchedo againsto theo employeeo ono theo basiso ofo evidenceo and materialocollectedoagainstohimoduringoinvestigationooroasoreflected inotheochargeosheet.o

(iv) Theo factorso mentionedo ato (ii)o ando (iii)o aboveo cannoto be consideredoinoisolationotoostayotheoDepartmentaloproceedingsobut dueo regardo haso too beo giveno too theo facto thato theo departmental proceedingsocannotobeoundulyodelayed.o

(v) Ifotheocriminalocaseodoesonotoproceedooroitsodisposaloisobeing undulyodelayed,otheodepartmentaloproceedings,oevenoifotheyowere stayedoonoaccountoofotheopendencyoofotheocriminalocase,ocanobe resumedoandoproceededowithosooasotooconcludeothemoatoanoearly date,osoothatoifotheoemployeeoisofoundonotoguiltyohisohonouromayobe vindicatedoandoinocaseoheoisofoundoguilty,oadministrationomayoget ridoofohimoatotheoearliest." A perusal of the above judgment would show that the Hon'ble CWP-26062-2023 oooooooo5 2023:PHHC:147064o 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 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 department proceedings, the same can be resumed and 2023.11.23 09:50 proceededowith.o CWP-26062-2023 oooooooo6 2023:PHHC:147064o

¶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 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 reason of the impugned judgmentoopiningo:-o

¶14Inotheoinstantocase,othereoisonoodisputeothatotheocriminaloaction andotheodisciplinaryoproceedingsoareofoundedouponotheosameosetoof facts.oInofact,otheodisciplinaryoproceedingsoareosolelyobasedoupon theocriminalocomplaintolodgedobyotheopresidentoofoaorivalounion, whooisoalsoofacingoprosecutionowithoregardotootheosameoincident.oIt hasobeenoconcededobeforeousothatotheobankohadonotoconductedoany independentoenquiryobeforeoinitiatingotheoimpugnedodepartmental proceedings.o

¶15In our opinion, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case on hand, fair play requireso thato postponingo ofo the departmentaloproceedingsotillotheocriminalocasesoareodecided.oWe are,otherefore,oofotheoviewothatotheoprayeromadeobyotheopetitioners forodeferringotheodepartmentaloproceedingsotillotheoconclusionoof theocriminalotrialohasotoobeoacceptedoandoitoisoorderedoaccordingly. xxx xxx xxx

¶18Legalo positiono operatingo ino theo fieldo iso noo longero reso integra. A departmentalo proceedingso pendingo ao criminalo proceedingso doeso not warranto ano automatico stay.o Theo superioro courtso beforeo exercisingo its discretionaryojurisdictionoinothisoregardomustotakeointooconsiderationothe factoasotoowhetherotheochargesoasoalsootheoevidenceoinobothotheoproceedings ao re common ooand 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) and Capt. M. Paul Anthonyo(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 departmentalDAVINDER KUMAR I attest to the accuracy and enquiry has to be determined in each case taking into CWP-26062-2023 oooooooo7 2023:PHHC:147064o consideration all facts and circumstances of the case. This judgmentoalsoolaysodownothatotheostayoofodepartmentaloproceedings cannotobeoandoshouldonotobeoaomatteroofocourse."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, therefore, misdirected itself in law. WhatowasonecessaryotoobeonoticedobyotheoHighoCourtowasonot onlyoexistenceoofoidenticalofactsoandotheoevidenceoinotheomatter,oitowasoalso requiredotootakeointooconsiderationotheoquestionoasotoowhetherotheocharges levelledoagainstotheodelinquentoofficers,obothoinotheocriminalocaseoasoalso theodisciplinaryoproceedings,owereosame.oFurthermoreoitowasoobligatory onotheopartoofotheoHighoCourtotooarriveoatoaofindingothatotheononostayoofothe disciplinaryoproceedingsoshallonotoonlyoprejudiceotheodelinquentoofficers butotheomatteroalsootheomatteroinvolvesoaocomplicatedoquestionoofolaw." In the above-said case, the 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 by making the observationsowhichohaveobeenoreproducedohereinabove.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 departmental proceedings and every case where departmental proceedings and criminal trial with regard to the same misconduct is I attest to the accuracy andpending is not to be stayed. It was also observed in the said judgment that CWP-26062-2023 oooooooo8 2023:PHHC:147064o 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 as to whether the respondent 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 as to 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. Theotribunalobyoitsoorderodatedo2.7.2003 cameotootheoconclusionothatotheofirstotwooArticlesoofochargesoareoidentical tootheochargeolevelledoagainstotheopetitionerobeforeotheospecialocourtounder othe provisions of theoPo revention of Corruption Actooand the third Articleo of 2023.11.23 09:50 charge though not a subject matter of the trial iso ano inter-connected CWP-26062-2023 oooooooo9 2023:PHHC:147064o chargeo witho chargeso 1o ando 2,o henceo ito allowedo theo applicationo ofo the respondentoandodirectedotheoappellantothatoproceedingsopursuantotoothe chargeo memoo beo stayedo tillo theo applicanto discloseso hiso defenceo ino the pendingocriminalotrial. It, however gave permission to the appellant to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings after the disclosure of the defence by the respondent whichoinoeffectowouldomeanothatotheodisciplinary proceedingsowillostandostayedoalmostotillotheodisposaloofotheotrialobeforeothe criminalocourt. xxx xxx xxx

¶11In the instant case, from the order of the tribunal as also from the impugned order of the High Court, weodoonotofindothatotheotwooforums belowohaveoconsideredotheospecialofactsoofothisocaseowhichopersuaded tohem to stay the departmental proceedingso.oOn the contrary, reading ofo theotwooimpugnedoordersoindicatesothatobothotheotribunaloandotheoHigh Courtoproceededoasoifoaodepartmentaloenquiryohadotoobeostayedoinoevery caseowhereoaocriminalotrialoinoregardotootheosameomisconductoisopending. NeitherotheotribunalonorotheoHighoCourtodidotakeointooconsiderationothe seriousnesso ofo theo chargeo whicho pertainso too acceptanceo ofo illegal gratificationoando theodesirabilityo ofocontinuingotheoappellantoino service inspiteoofosuchoseriousochargesolevelledoagainstohim.oThisoCourtoinotheosaid caseoofoStateoofoRajasthano(supra)ohasofurtheroobservedothatotheoapproach ando theo objectiveo ino theo criminalo proceedingso ando theo disciplinary proceedingso iso altogethero distincto ando different.o Ito heldo thato ino the disciplinaryoproceedingsotheoquestionoisowhetherotheorespondentoisoguiltyoof sucho conducto aso wouldo merito hiso removalo fromo serviceo oro ao lesser punishment,oasotheocaseomayobe,owhereasoinotheocriminaloproceedingsothe questionoisowhetherotheooffencesoregisteredoagainstohimoareoestablished and,oifoestablished,owhatosentenceoshouldobeoimposedouponohim.oTheocourt inotheoaboveocaseofurtheronotedothatotheostandardoofoproof,otheomodeoof enquiryoandotheorulesogoverningotheoenquiryoandotrialoinobothotheocasesoare distinctoandodifferent. 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 tribunalofelloinoerroroinostayingotheodisciplinaryoproceedings. xxx xxx xxx

¶14WeoareoofotheoopinionothatobothotheotribunaloandotheoHighoCourt proceededo ono ano erroneouso legalo principleo withouto takingo into considerationotheofactsoandocircumstancesoofothisocaseoandoproceededoasoif theostayoofodisciplinaryoproceedingsoisoaomustoinoeveryocaseowhereothereois aocriminalotrialoonotheoveryosameocharges……"

¶8The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "StateoBankoofoIndiaoandoOrs. I attest to the accuracy andvs. NeelamoNagoandoAnr., reported as 2016(9) SCC 491, had observed as CWP-26062-2023 oooooooo10 2023:PHHC:147064o 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-settledothatothereoisonoolegalobarotootheoconductoofothe disciplinaryoproceedingsoandocriminalotrialosimultaneously.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 been delineatedoinoaoseriesoofodecisions.o

¶14This Court in Karnataka SRTC vs. M.G.Vittal Rao (2012) 1 SCCo442ohasosummedoupotheosameoinotheofollowingowords:o "(i) Thereoisonoolegalobaroforobothotheoproceedingsotoogooon simultaneously.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 eveno sucho groundso wouldo beo available onlyoinocasesoinvolvingocomplexoquestionsoofofactsoorolaw.o

(iii) Suchodefenceooughtonototoobeopermittedotoounnecessarily delayo theo departmentalo proceedings.o Theo interesto ofo the delinquentoofficeroasowelloasotheoemployeroclearlyoliesoinoa promptoconclusionoofotheodisciplinaryoproceedings.

(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 proceedingsoisocommon. (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 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 I attest to the accuracy andevidence of the witnesses in the departmental proceedings is to be kept in CWP-26062-2023 oooooooo11 2023:PHHC:147064o 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 facts, has been brought to the notice of this Court. The present case is a case in which the issue which is required to be considered is as to whether the petitioner had sought bribe of Rs.30,000/- from the complainant in lieu of letting the overloaded vehicles of the complainant pass through the highway and as to whether the raiding party had caught the petitioner red handed on the spot while accepting Rs.30,000/- as bribe money in the presence of witnesses. 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, in the present case as has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has not been submitted in the Court, thus, the question as to whether witnesses 6 to 9 in the list (Annexure P-5) would also be the witnesses in the criminal case cannot be fully established. At any rate, there is no complicated question of law or fact involved in the present case as has been detailed hereinabove. 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 allegations in the present case are that the petitioner was demanding bribe of Rs.30,000/- from the complainant Sahib Singh for letting his overloaded vehicles pass through the highway where the petitioner was posted and was alsoocaughtoredohandedoforoacceptingobribeoofoRs.30,000/-.

¶9Before parting, it would be relevant to make a note of the judgments of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court which are relevant 2023.11.23 09:50 inotheopresentocase.o CWP-26062-2023 oooooooo12 2023:PHHC:147064o

¶10The 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, 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 thatothougho chargeso haveo alreadyo beeno framedo butothe 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 CWP-26062-2023 oooooooo13 2023:PHHC:147064o 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.

¶11In the present case also, as has been stated herein-above, since the investigation is not completed and neither the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been submitted nor the charges have been framed, thus, the principle of law as laid down in the above-said judgments would also apply inotheopresentocase.o

¶12The 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 ofo departmental proceedingsoinosuchocasesoseemsotoobeothree-fold:o

(i)oTooweedooutoanoemployeeowhoseointegrityo/ocharacterohas beenoputotoodoubt,oprimaofacie,oonoaccountoofosomeocriminal proceedingsohavingobeenoinitiatedoagainstohim/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,oanyoinordinateodelayoinoconclusion ofo departmentalo proceedings,o whereo chargeso areo ofo very seriouso nature,o wouldo unnecessarilyo entailo burdeno on exchequeroandothusowillobeoagainstopublicointerest.o

(iii)oTheodepartmentaloproceedingsoisotoomaintainodiscipline inotheoserviceoandoefficiencyoofopublicoserviceoandothus,oits initiationoandoconclusionoasoexpeditiouslyoasopossibleoisoin publicointerest. 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,o theo delayo ino criminalo trialo cannoto beDAVINDER KUMAR authenticity of this judicial record/ attributedotootheopetitioner,oatotheosameotime,otheodepartmentocannotobe CWP-26062-2023 oooooooo14 2023:PHHC:147064o expectedotoowaitoendlesslyoforotheotrialotooconclude as held in Capt. M. PauloAnthony'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,o thereo iso noo questiono ofo any disclosureo ofo defenceo ino theo departmentalo proceedings.o Aso faro aso the ovarious provisions ofoPo revention of Corruption Acto,o 1988 are concernedo, mostoofotheoprovisionsoareotoobeoprovedobyotheoprosecutionoduringothe courseo ofo trialo excepto theo oneo concerningo "knowno sourceso ofo income", which again is within the special knowledge of accused-petitioner. Hence, thereoseemsotoobeonoojustificationoinotheoprayeromadeobyopetitionerofor stayingoofodisciplinaryoproceedings."o In the abovesaid judgment, the reasons for early conclusion of departmental proceedings have been highlighted and it has been observed that the cases registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are to be proved by the prosecution during the course of trial and thus, there is no justification for staying the disciplinary proceedings. The SLP i.e., SLP no.8279 of 2021 filed against the said judgment was dismissed as withdrawnoono17.10.2022.oo

13.o Keeping in view the abovesaid facts & circumstances and the law laid down in the above-said judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this Court, the present writ petition deserves to beodismissedoandoisoaccordinglyodismissed. (VIKASoBAHL) oooooooooooooooooooJUDGE Novembero20,o2023. DavinderoKumar Whetherospeakingo/oreasoned Yes/No Whetheroreportable Yes/No