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 by the authority concerned against the petitioner. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to consider the grievances of the petitioner in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this court and also passed the reasoned and speaking order regarding the said matter. (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 in Police Line Meerut. Petitioner was allotted court duty on 16.3.2011 to produce two hardened criminal namely Bablu and Pankaj in the court of Additional District Judge -II, Meerut. Petitioner submits that he and one home guard were not aware of the said real facts that both of them are hardened criminal and after returning from the court to Hawalat of court campus they ran away from the court campus and immediately petitioner claims that he and Home guard informed the Inspector In charge and Higher Authority of the concerned authority. Against this action, first information report has been lodged against the petitioner in Case Crime No. 121 of 2011, under Section 223, 224 I.P.C., P.S. Civil Lines, Meerut. Show cause notice has been issued on 3.8.2011 and to the same reply has been submitted on 5.9.2011. Petitioner submits that in the said case before the trial court and witnesses have been summoned and petitioner is facing the trial in the concern court. Petitioner submits that evidence is going on and on similar set of fact and same witnesses and 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. After receiving the show cause notice petitioner came to know 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 as such departmental disciplinary proceedings may be stayed till the conclusion of the criminal case. Sri R.C. Upadhaya, 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.;