Augustine George Masih, J. - (1.) COUNSEL for the Petitioner has submitted that the departmental proceedings pending against the Petitioner may be stayed during the pendency of trial of the criminal proceedings as the allegations in the F.I.R. and the departmental proceedings are the same. The Petitioner would be prejudiced as he will have to disclose his defence in the departmental proceedings which would adversely affect his stand in the criminal proceedings. He further submits that the departmental proceedings have come to an end and the Petitioner has been issued a show cause notice by passing a final order in the departmental proceedings after the submission of the enquiry report by the Inquiry Officer. He submits that the criminal proceedings before the Competent Court are at the stage of recording of evidence of the prosecution and if the departmental proceedings are finalized prior thereto, the Petitioner would suffer an irreparable loss as his defence would be prejudiced before the criminal Court. He has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association v. NOIDA and Ors. 2007 (2) RSJ 504 to contend that the allegations in the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based upon identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of grave nature which involves conflicting questions of law and facts and therefore, the departmental proceedings be stayed till the conclusion of the criminal case.
(2.) ON the other hand, counsel for the Respondents submits that there are no complicated questions of facts and law involved in this case. It is a simple case where the allegations against the Petitioner are that while he was posted at Police Station Sadar Hansi, one Ram Bilas son of Raj Kumar Sharma, resident of Nehla, District Fatehabad was called at the Police Station and told that Manjit Singh son of Rajbir Singh his nephew has been arrested at Police Station Sadar Hansi in F.I.R. No. 219 dated 10th August, 2006 under Section 382 IPC. The Petitioner threatened the said Ram Bilas that he would involve his brother also in that case unless a bribe of Rs. 5000 is not paid to him. The Petitioner pressurized Ram Bilas for this amount of Rs. 5000/ -. Ram Bilas having got fed up made a written complaint against the Petitioner to the Superintendent of Police, State Vigilance Bureau, Hisar on 21st August, 2006. Inspector Ramesh Kumar caught the Petitioner red handed and recovered a sum of Rs. 5000/ - from him which he had demanded and taken as bribe. F.I.R. No. 50 dated 21st August, 2006 under Section 7, 13, 49/88 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered against the Petitioner at Police Station State Vigilance Bureau, Haryana, Hisar. The Petitioner after his arrest was released on bail by the Court and the said case is still pending against him. This act of the Petitioner of taking bribe of Rs. 5000/ - from Ram Bilas is an act of grave indiscipline and carelessness which has given a bad name and impression to the Police Department in the eyes of the public and therefore, having been charged for this indiscipline and carelessness and grave act of misconduct, the Petitioner is being departmentally proceeded against. It has been submitted by the Respondents that the intention and purpose of the criminal prosecution and departmental enquiry are totally different and distinct from each other; their nature is different; and their effects are different. In criminal prosecution, the accused is tried for an offence for violation of a duty the offender owes to the Society or for breach of which, law has provided that the offender shall made satisfaction to the public. It is the violation of the law or the omission of a public duty for which the Court tries the accused and if found guilty, he is punished accordingly. In a departmental enquiry, it is primarily with an intention of maintaining discipline in the service and to see that the efficiency is maintained in public service. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties.
(3.) THE Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. : 1999 (3) SCC 679 indicated some of the fact situations which would govern the question where the departmental proceedings may be kept in abeyance during pendency of a criminal case. The conclusions after considering the law on this aspect were summarized in paragraph 22 thereof which reads as follows: (i) "Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a 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 the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee 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 the criminal case. (iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether, complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge -sheet. (iv) The factors mentions 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 the 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 the pendency of the 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, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest.;