IMPORTANT POINT
There is no legal bar to conducting departmental and criminal proceedings simultaneously unless the charges are identical and grave, which would prejudice the employee's defense.

ORDER :

Munnuri Laxman, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashment of chrgesheet dated 07.09.2021 issued by the respondent No.4-the Disciplinary Authority to the writ petitioner.

2. The case of the writ-petitioner is that while the petitioner was posted as a Constable at Mahila Thana, Churu, the FIR No.0125/2021 was lodged at Police Station Kotwali Churu against her for offence under Sections 454, 380, 414, 411, 201 of IPC and Sections 7, 25(1-AA) of the Arms Act. On the basis of the above FIR, the disciplinary proceedings were commenced by issuing the chargesheet dated 7. 09.2021. According to the petitioners, the charges in the disciplinary proceedings and in the criminal case are based on the same set of facts. If the departmental enquiry is allowed to continue, the petitioner is greatly prejudiced in defending his criminal case and he has to disclose his defence in the disciplinary proceedings before the trial has been commenced in the criminal case, which would have great prejudice to him. Therefore, the petitioner seeks quashment of chargesheet pending the decision in the criminal case.

3. The reply filed by the respondents shows that the petitioner was posted at Mahila Thana, Churu at the relevant time. When the petitioner was on Sentry duty on 27.05.2021 from 2 pm to 6 pm, she allegedly took INSAS Rifle from the store of HM Office and hid in the house of one Prakash, who is her neighbour. In this regard, an FIR was registered and subsequently, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Churu, who submitted his report dated 4.06.2021 giving preliminary finding that the petitioner deliberately neglected duties; misused the position of Sentry guard and violated the departmental rules leading to misconduct, dereliction of duties. On the basis of the said report, the departmental proceedings were commenced by issuing the chargesheet. The pleadings also show that there is no bar in conducting the departmental proceedings and proceedings in criminal case simultaneously. Both the criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings are on different facts and it is not a fit case to grant relief to the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

4. Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the writ-petitioner has vehemently contended that the foundational facts for chargesheet under the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and if both the proceedings are simultaneously continued, the writ-petitioner would be greatly prejudiced in defending his criminal case and he was bound to make out his defence in the departmental proceedings, which would have the impact on his defence in the criminal trial. Therefore, the departmental proceedings cannot be allowed to continue till the criminal proceedings are concluded.

6. The learned counsel has also brought to the notice of the Court the charge No.2 of the chargesheet issued under departmental proceedings and contended that the facts in the chargesheet and the facts in criminal case are same and identical. Therefore, the simultaneously conducting of departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings are unfair and unjust. Such simultaneous proceedings have the prejudicial effect on the right of the petitioner in defending the criminal case. Therefore, he prayed for allowing the writ petition.

7. The learned Government Counsel appearing for the respondents has contended that there is no bar in conducting the departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings simultaneously. According to him, the charges in the departmental proceedings and criminal case are different and they are not identical set of facts though some facts are overlapping. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to restrain the respondents from proceeding in the departmental enquiry merely because the criminal case against the petitioner is pending. Hence, he prayed for dismissa