Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Jyotsna Rewal Dua, JJ.
Shubham Thakur - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 1418 of 2020
Decided On : 14-10-2020
Stay of Departmental Proceedings - Criminal Trial - Indian Penal Code, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - [Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act] - The court discussed the legal position on simultaneous conduct of departmental and criminal proceedings, emphasizing that the nature of the charge in the criminal case, its complexity, and the need to avoid undue delay in departmental proceedings are crucial factors in determining whether the departmental inquiry should be stayed. The court held that the two proceedings have distinct objectives and standards of proof, and that the interests of administration and the delinquent officer lie in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Constable, sought abeyance of the departmental proceedings initiated against him until the final decision of the criminal case arising from an FIR registered against him for possessing heroin. The petitioner argued that the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal case were based on the same set of facts, and staying the disciplinary proceedings during the criminal trial was necessary to prevent prejudice to his defense.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the departmental proceedings should not be stayed as the nature and objectives of the two proceedings are distinct. It emphasized the need to avoid undue delay in departmental proceedings and concluded that the interests of administration and the delinquent officer lie in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.
Issues: The main issue was whether the departmental inquiry should be stayed until the completion of the criminal trial, considering that the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal case were based on the same set of facts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the nature of the charge in the criminal case, its complexity, and the need to avoid undue delay in departmental proceedings are crucial factors in determining whether the departmental inquiry should be stayed. It held that the two proceedings have distinct objectives and standards of proof, and that the interests of administration and the delinquent officer lie in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition and held that the departmental proceedings should not be stayed, as the interests of administration and the delinquent officer lie in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.
JUDGMENT
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. - Petitioner, a Constable, seeks abeyance of the departmental proceedings initiated against him till the final decision of the criminal case arising out of FIR No. 66 of 2020 registered against him at Police Station Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh
2. Petitioner was appointed as a Constable in Police Department and was posted in 4th India Reserve Battalion, Jangal Beri, District Hamirpur. On 03.07.2019, he was deployed for duty at BCP Sansari Nala, District Chamba. During the leave period of petitioner, on 16.04.2010, an FIR No. 66 of 2020 was registered against him under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act at Police Station Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur for possessing 1.00 gms. of Heroin. Petitioner was released under the provisions of Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Considering that petitioner, an employee of law enforcement agency, was found involved in an illegal activity tentamounting to grave mis-conduct, unbecoming of a police officer, therefore, he was placed under suspension and regular departmental inquiry under Police Rules was ordered against him on 17.04.2020. Summary of Allegations in the departmental inquiry was served upon him on 24.04.2020. Immediately thereafter, instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in the facts and circumstances of the case, pending criminal trial, the departmental inquiry initiated against the petitioner is liable to be stayed. Learned counsel further submitted that challan in the criminal case arising out of FIR No. 66 of 2020 has been presented before the competent Court on 24.08.2020. Witnesses in the criminal case would be the same as in the disciplinary proceedings. The disciplinary proceedings and the criminal case are based upon same set of facts, allegations and evidence. The entire defence of the petitioner would, therefore, be prejudiced in case disciplinary proceedings are not stayed during the pendency of the criminal case.
4. Learned Additional Advocate General opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submitted that the Departmental Proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner and Summary of Allegations have been issued as per the provisions contained in Chapter XVI of Punjab Police Rules 1934, applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh for violation of Service Rules. This is meant for maintaining discipline and efficiency in the disciplined force, like the Police, whereas criminal proceedings against the petitioner have been initiated for violation of law laid down by the Statute. Further, it was urged that there is no legal bar to simultaneous holding of both, criminal and departmental proceedings, as the two proceedings operate in different fields, have different approach and objectives and require different degrees of proof. Therefore, the departmental inquiry initiated against the petitioner vide Order dated 17.04.2020 is not required to be kept in abeyance.
5. The issue as to whether the departmental inquiry needs to be stayed till the completion of criminal trial or till the recording of statements of witnesses in the criminal case has already been adjudicated by this Court in CWP No. 474 of 2020, decided on 26.06.2020. It would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant para from the judgment as under :-
"7(ii). Having noticed the rival contentions, we now examine the legal position. Hon'ble Apex Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Kushal Bhan, (1960) AIR SC 806 , observed that very often employers stay enquiries pending decision of criminal trials. However, it cannot be said that the principles of natural justice require an employer to mandatorily wait for the decision of the criminal trial Court before taking action against an employee. However, if the case was of grave nature and involved complicated questions of facts and law, it would be advis
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
