AMITAVA LALA,J. - (1.) THIS appeal is arising out of an order passed by the learned Single Judge on 25-11-2010. The appellant was working as Gram Panchayat Adhikari. He was placed under suspension and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. The suspension order was assailed by the appellant in Writ Petition No.67246 of 2010 and the court held that the inquiry pending against the petitioner/appellant shall be concluded as expeditiously as possible. However, the Under Secretary of the State Government has now asked the District Magistrate to lodge a First Information Report in connection with the embezzlement of the public funds. The appellant has challenged the order but the court held that the disciplinary proceedings and lodging of First Information Report are independent proceedings, therefore, the lodging of the First Information Report cannot be deferred till the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has relied upon a government communication dated 19.7.2005 by which a direction was given not to lodge First Information Report before the conclusion of the departmental inquiry. Learned Counsel for the appellant further says that this is an order under Article 162 of the Constitution of India and clearly applies to the present case. Shri R.N. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel has contended that such government communication is nothing but an executive instruction and not a government order, therefore, it has no statutory force.
(3.) ACCORDING to us, First Information Report is required to be lodged under Section 154 Cr.P.C. There are catena of judgments which says that there should not be delay in lodging the First Information Report. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that the departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. This contention is also supported by the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment in M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Limited, 1999-LLN-2-640. The only rider has been given in para 22 (ii) that if the departmental proceedings and the criminal cases are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case, but no vice-versa as apparent from the plain reading of the judgment in M.Paul Anthony (Supra).;