Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J. - (1.) PETITIONERS have rushed to this Court for following relief: (i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner under Rule 14 (1) of Uttar Pradesh Police Officer of Subordinate Ranks, (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 21991, in pursuance of the departmental charge sheet dated 30.4.2011, 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 proceeding initiated against the petitioner in pursuance of the departmental charge sheet dated 30.4.2011. (iii) issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (iv) Award cost of petition through out.
(2.) BRIEF background of the case as is reflected that petitioner was posted as Constable at Reserve Police Line Baghpat, District Baghpat. First information report has been lodged against the petitioner in Case Crime No. 114 of 2011, under Sections I.P.C., P.S. Rath, District Hamirpur on the ground that petitioner was demanding illegal gratification from Sarvesh Khare, son of Babu Ram, Resident Khare Muhalla, Chaubatta, P.S. Rath, District Hamirpur. Charge sheet in Criminal case has been filed on 5.3.2011. Petitioner submits that departmental charge sheet on same set of facts and evidence has been given to him on 30.4.2011. Petitioner submits that evidence is similar based on same set of fact and witnesses and as charges mentioned in the departmental charge sheet are identical and based on similar set of facts as well as the evidence in both the proceedings is common, in this background petitioner has moved an application before the respondents authority with the request that as criminal proceedings for the identical and similar set of facts is on going and as evidence in both the proceeding as such departmental disciplinary proceedings may be stayed till the conclusion of the criminal case. Sri Vijay Gautam, 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 vs. Bharat Coal Mines Ltd. : 1999 (3) S.C.C. 679 and : 2004 (7) S.C.C. 27 State Bank of India Versus R.B. Sharma.
(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.;