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 impugned notice dated 9.12.2011 including entire disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners initiated under Rule 14(1) of U.P. Police Subordinate Officer (Punishment and Appeals) Rules, 1991 and to allow the writ petition with cost. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to stay the entire effect and operation of the impugned notice dated 9.12.2011 including entire disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners initiated under Rule 14(1) of U.P. Police Subordinate Officer (Punishment and Appeals) Rules, 1991, during pendency of the criminal case. (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 petitioners were posted in District Muzaffar Nagar in the year 2006. They were deputed on 29.7.2006 to produce a prisoner from district Jail, Muzaffarnagar to the court of Additional District Judge, Karnal (Haryana). Petitioner submits that they were near Shamli Highway on 29.7.2006 at about 4 P.M. some criminals armed with deadly weapons came in Maruti Car and got the prisoner forcibly released from the police custody of the petitioners. Against this action, first information report has been lodged against the petitioner in Case Crime No. 233 of 2006, under Sections 223, 224, 225, 218, 120B/201 I.P.C., P.S. Shamli, District Muzaffarnagar. Charge sheet has been issued on 6.10.2008 and to the same reply has been submitted. Petitioner submits that in the said case before the trial court witnesses have been summoned and petitioner is facing the trial in the concern court. Petitioner submits that evidence is going on and on smiler set of fact and on same witnesses and sme evidence departmental proceeding is also going on against the petitioner on the same charges, wherein show cause notice was served to the petitioner by the authorities concerned. Petitioner submits that the 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 is common as such departmental disciplinary proceedings may be stayed till the conclusion of the criminal case. Sri Gulab Chandra, 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.;