V.K. Shukla, J. - (1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court for following relief: (i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the department disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Petitioner under Rule 14(1) of Uttar Pradesh Police Officer of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, in pursuance of the order/charge sheet dated 15.3.2011, issued by the Respondent No. 4. (ii) To issue any other writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to stay the further departmental disciplinary proceeding initiated against the Petitioners in pursuance of the order/charge sheet dated 15.3.2011. (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 Petitioner has been performing and discharging his duties as constable in civil police. First information report has been lodged against the Petitioner under Sections 409 I.P.C., Police Station Nawabad District Jhansi, being Case Crime No. 175 of 2011. In the said criminal case, charge sheet in question has been filed and the matter earlier had been pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi. Petitioner has stated that departmental charge sheet has also been issued on 15.03.2011 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, and he has moved application also in this regard. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed with the prayer mentioned above. Sri Amit Kumar Singh, Advocate, learned Counsel for the Petitioner 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.;