- (1.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the quashing of the order dated 09th January, 2013, whereby his application for staying the departmental disciplinary proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal proceedings was rejected by the authority concerned. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition is that the petitioner is a constable and, a criminal case under Section 376 has been initiated against him, which is pending before the appropriate Court. On the other hand, a disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner on the charges that the petitioner on the pretext of given false assurance to marry Rajni Devi had illicit relationship with her and also made demand of dowry and had also taken objectionable pictures of her.
(2.) THE contention of the petitioner is that the departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings which are continuing simultaneously are based on identical or similar set of facts, and therefore, it would be appropriate that the departmental proceedings should be stayed till the disposal of the criminal case. In this regard, the petitioner has relied upon an decision of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Vs. Sarvesh Berry, 2005 5 ESC 1993as well as a decision of the Supreme Court in Captain M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and other, 1999 3 SCC 679.
(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, the Court finds that the position of law is well settled, namely, that the departmental proceedings and the criminal proceedings can go on simultaneously, except where a departmental proceeding and a criminal proceeding are based on the same set of facts and evidence and where the witnesses are common in the said cases, the Court has to decide taking into account the said features of the case as to whether simultaneously continuance of both the proceedings would be appropriate and proper or not. In Abhay Raj Singh Vs. Bank of Baroda and another,2005 2 UPLBEC 1802, the Court held that: - " it is well settled principle of law that the degree of proof required in a departmental enquiry is vastly different than the degree of proof required to prove a criminal charge. In the departmental enquiry the findings can be recorded in preponderance of probabilities and it is not necessary that the charge must be proved to the hilt. The departmental proceedings and the criminal proceedings are entirely different in nature. They operate in different fields and they have different objectives. The material or the evidence in the two proceedings may or may not be the same and, in some cases, at least, material or evidence which would be relevant or open for consideration in the departmental proceeding, may be irrelevant in the criminal proceeding. The Rules relating to the appreciation of the evidence in the two enquiries may also be different. The standard of proof, the mode of enquiry and the rules governing the enquiry and the trial in both the cases are entirely distinct and different. The law is well settled that the Inquiry Officer can come to a different conclusion than arrived at by a Criminal Court and that it is immaterial whether the charges were identical or the witnesses were the same, as long as the power exercised by the Criminal Court and the inquiry under the relevant law and the service law and the distinct and separate. There is no bar for holding a disciplinary proceeding during the pendency of the trial though the basis may be one and the same. It is for the disciplinary authority to decide as to whether in a given case it should keep the domestic enquiry pending till the outcome of the criminal trial or not.";