V.K. Shukla, J. - (1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court for following relief: (i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the departmental 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 15.4.2011, issued by the Respondent No. 4. (ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents, to stay the further departmental disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Petitioner in pursuance of the order/charge sheet dated 15.4.2010. (iii) Issue any other writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iv) To award cost of this petition.
(2.) BRIEF background of the case is that Petitioner has been performing and discharging his duties as constable. First information report has been lodged against the Petitioner being Case Crime No. 494 of 2009, under Section 13(A)(1)(d)(2)(15) Prevention of Corruption Act, at Police Station Sigra, District Varanasi. In the said criminal case, charge sheet in question has been filed. On 15.4.2011 by the Respondent No. 4. departmental charge sheet has been given, at this juncture Petitioner has moved an application on 20.4.2011 mentioning therein that departmental charge sheet has been issued to him on 15.4.2011 in order to initiate proceeding under Rule 14(1) of U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 and as criminal trial is on going, departmental proceeding be stayed. On no action being taken, at this juncture present writ petition has been filed with the prayer mentioned above. Sri. Vijay Gautam, 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. 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.
(3.) AFTER the respective arguments have been advanced, the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Coal Mines Ltd. : AIR 1999 SC 1416 is being looked into. In the aforementioned judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court after taking into account various earlier judgments has held that departmental proceedings and proceedings in criminal case can proceed simultaneously, as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. It has been further held that if the departmental proceedings and criminal case are based on similar set of facts and charges in criminal case against delinquent employees is of grave nature which involves complicated questions of fact and law, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till conclusion of criminal case. Whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved or not will depend upon the nature of the offence, and the case lodged against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected during the investigation or as reflected in the charge sheet, and these facts are not to be considered in isolation but due regard has to be given to the fact that departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. Thus, if complicated questions of fact and law are involved, and departmental proceedings and criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts, only then it is desirable to stay the departmental proceedings, but the said facts are not to be considered in isolation. Paragraph 22 of the judgment being relevant is being quoted below: 22. The conclusions which are deducible from the various decisions of this Court referred to above are: (i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in criminal case can proceed simultaneously, as there is no bar in their being conducted, simultaneously, though separately. (ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and charge in criminal case against delinquent employees 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 criminal case. (iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case will depend upon the nature of the offence, the nature of case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during the investigation or as reflected in the charge sheet. (iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. (v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of pendency of criminal case can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, administration may get rid of him at the earliest.;