- (1.) THE petitioner is a Sub-Inspector of Police against whom a charge-sheet has been served and he has come up for quashing of the said charge-sheet in the dis­ciplinary proceedings on the ground that same incident has been investigated by the C.B.I and the matter is pending before a criminal Court. He contends that the disciplinary pro­ceedings should be stayed. It is further sub­mitted that since the proceedings are grounded on the same set of facts, therefore, the prayer of the petitioner should be ac­cepted. The law on this issue is settled and the authorities are at discretion to consider the same. Reference may had to the decision in the case of Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab Na­tional Bank and others reported in 2009 (2) SCC 570 and in the case of Managing Direc­tor, State Bank of Hyderabad and another v. P. Kata Rao reported in AIR 2008 SC 2146 and the standard of proof required for the pur­pose of proceeding in a disciplinary enquiry as against that of a criminal proceeding is dif­ferent. Paragraph 20 of P. Kata Rao's case (supra) is quoted below: "The legal principle enunciated to the ef­fect that on the same set of facts the delin­quent shall not be proceeded in a departmen­tal proceedings and in a criminal case simul­taneously, has, however, been deviated from. The dicta of this Court in Capt. M. Paul An­thony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Another [(1999) 3 SCC 679] : (AIR 1999 SC 1416), however, remains unshaken although the ap­plicability thereof had been found to be de­pendent on the fact situation obtaining in each case."
(2.) IN the event the petitioner believes it to be grounded on the same set of facts it shall be pointed out before the disciplinary author­ity who is at liberty to entertain such a re­quest. There is no ground to quash the charge-sheet at this stage. Accordingly the writ peti­tion is dismissed. Petition dismissed.;