V.K. Shukla, J. - (1.) PETITIONERS have approached this Court for following relief: (i) To call for the records of the case and to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents not to proceed with departmental proceedings against the Petitioners and it may be kept in abeyance till the conclusion of criminal proceeding against the Petitioners. (ii) To issue any other writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to consider the representation of the Petitioners for suspending/staying the departmental proceedings initiated against the Petitioners in pursuance of the charge sheet dated 18.2.2009 vide Annexure -2 (iii) To issue any other suitable writ order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iii) To award cost of this petition.
(2.) BRIEF background of the case is that Petitioners have been performing and discharging their duties as constable in civil police. First information report has been lodged against the Petitioners under Sections 223/224 I.P.C., Police station Line Bazar, District Jaunpur, being Case Crime No. 1914 of 2009. In the said criminal case, charge sheet in question has been filed and the matter earlier had been pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur. Petitioners have stated that the matter has been committed to the Court of Session thereafter wherein on 10.1.2009 charges have been framed. Petitioners have stated that departmental charge sheet has also been issued on 10.1.2009 in order to initiate proceeding under Rule 14(1) of U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeals) Rules, 1991 and as criminal trial is on going, departmental proceeding be stayed. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed with the prayer mentioned above Sri Manish Chandra Tiwari, Advocate, learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended with vehemence that in the present case, criminal case and departmental proceeding are based on same set of fact and same evidence, as such continuance of departmental inquiry, is not at all justifiable and consequentially directive be issued for withholding departmental proceeding till criminal trial is not over. For this preposition he has also placed reliance on Regulation 492 and 493 of U.P. Police Regulations as well as judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Coal Mines Ltd. : 1999 (3) S.C.C. 679 and : 2004 (7) S.C.C. 27 State Bank of India v. R.B. Sharma. and the judgment of this Court in the case of Prafulla Kumar v. S.T. Mukhawar Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36479 of 2005 decided on 1.4.2011.
(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that there is no bar in simultaneous proceeding i.e. criminal proceeding and departmental proceeding can go on simultaneously as area of both departmental proceeding and criminal prosecution are altogether different and as such there is no occasion for staying departmental proceedings such writ petition be dismissed.;