Departmental proceedings can proceed simultaneously with a criminal trial unless the charge in the criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law. The purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution are two different and distinct aspects. The criminal prosecution is launched 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 make satisfaction to the public. It is an anti-social behaviour. A departmental inquiry is to maintain discipline in service and efficiency in public office. Under the circumstances, it would be expedient that disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible.

Ajai Lamba, J.

1. This petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing list of allegations dated 22.04.2009 Annexure P-2 and charge sheet dated 07.08.2009 Annexure P-3 and proceedings flowing therefrom. In the alternative, prayer has been made that departmental proceedings be stayed till such time criminal case on the same allegations is pending against the petitioner. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has only stressed on the second prayer in regard to the stay of departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner.

2. It has been pleaded that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable in Punjab Armed Police on 19.03.2002 on regular basis. On the night of 02.04.2009, as per the pleaded case of the petitioner in para No. 3 of the writ petition, petitioner was going on his motor cycle at about 9:00 p.m. in the locality of Model Town, Jalandhar for purchasing medicines. On the basis of mistaken identity, the people of the locality caught hold of the petitioner under the impression that the petitioner had snatched purse of a lady. Case of the petitioner is of denial. Be that as it may, FIR bearing No. 137 dated 02.04.2009 had been registered for committing an offence under Section 382. Copy of the FIR has been placed on record as Annexure P-1.

3. Perusal of the FIR indicates that Amrit Pal Singh lodged a complaint to the effect that his wife Surinder Kaur, after purchasing household articles, reached near the gate of the house in a rickshaw. The complainant Amrit Pal Singh also came near the gate to take hold of the household articles from the rickshaw. While wife of the complainant was giving fare money to the rickshaw puller, a clean shaven person came on a motor cycle from back side, snatched the purse of Smt. Surinder Kaur and ran away. Noise was raised whereupon people gathered. A young boy namely Dara Singh acting in a bold manner, caught hold of the thief on the motor cycle. The thief was caught with the motor cycle. Particulars of the motor cycle have been given in the FIR. The accused gave out his name as Rajpal Singh s/o Kishan Singh i.e. the petitioner.

4. It seems that the incident was reported in the newspapers. Respondent No. 2 i.e. Commandant, 80th Battalion, PAP, Jalandhar Cantt. ordered a departmental inquiry against the petitioner. Respondent No. 3 i.e. DSP Paramjit Singh Pannu has been appointed as the inquiry officer. List of allegations Annexure P-2 has been served upon the petitioner which is dated 22.04.2009 and is under challenge.

5. Perusal of Annexure P-2 indicates that on the basis of news report, the petitioner had been suspended. In the list of allegations, it has been said that FIR had been registered against the petitioner with the allegation that the petitioner had indulged in the incident of purse snatching from Surinder Kaur. The petitioner being a member of disciplined force, by committing such an act, had spoiled the image of the department and would be liable to punishment. Departmental inquiry was initiated.

6. The petitioner insisted that the matter be kept in abeyance till such time the criminal case is decided. In the petition, it is the pleaded case that the petitioner was given to understand that inquiry proceedings will be stopped after recording statement of prosecution witnesses in the departmental inquiry. Be that as it may, the petitioner continued to participate in the inquiry proceedings. Recording of statement of prosecution witnesses was concluded by last week of July 2009. The petitioner again requested respondent No. 3 to stop the departmental inquiry as further proceedings would force the petitioner to disclose his defence and thereby his rights would be prejudiced. Be that as it may, charge sheet Annexure P-3 has been served on the basis of the inquiry. Perusal of charge-sheet indicates that contents are in the same terms as Anne