Departmental inquiries and criminal cases can proceed simultaneously, and undue delay in departmental proceedings should be avoided, especially in cases involving grave charges.

JUDGMENT

Ritu Bahri, J. - The petitioner is seeking writ of certiorari for quashing impugned order dated 04.03.2020 (Annexure P-2) vide which regular departmental inquiry has been ordered by respondent No. 3 and chargesheet dated 10.04.2020 (Annexure P-3) vide which respondent No. 4 has initiated the departmental inquiry on the basis of FIR No. 218 dated 01.03.2020, under Section 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered at Police Station Model Town, Panipat (Annexure P-1).

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the services of the respondent department on 23.02.2002 as lady Constable and was promoted as Head Constable on 08.05.2012 and was further promoted as ASI on 28.10.2016. She was working under respondent No.3- Superintendent of Police, Panipat. There was no adverse entry against the petitioner in her entire service record of 18 years except one censure which was given on account of delay in submitting the charge-sheet. However, one FIR No. 218 dated 01.03.2020 under Section 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered at Police Station Model Town, Panipat (Annexure P-1) against her.

3. The allegation in the said FIR (Annexure P-1) is that petitioner had demanded Rs.5,000/- from Rakesh Kumar for exonerating his mother from the FIR got registered by his wife. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 04.03.2020 (Annexure P-2) and thereafter regular departmental inquiry was initiated against her by respondent No.3. She was reinstated in service vide order dated 24.07.2020 w.e.f. 22.07.2020. She was issued charge-sheet dated 10.04.2020 (Annexure P-3). In this backdrop, writ petition has been filed.

4. On notice of this petition, written statement dated 13.10.2020 has been filed by respondents No. 1 to 4 and the stand taken by the respondents is that trial for criminal offence and a department inquiry do not stand on the same footing. The degree of proof required in the departmental proceedings is not the same as it is in a criminal case. The petitioner is deliberately delaying the proceedings of departmental inquiry and there is no bar for continuation of departmental inquiry alongwith criminal case and both can be initiated simultaneously. Further in para 2 of the written statement, it is highlighted that on 01.03.2020 the petitioner was apprehended red handed by Shri Satish Vats, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Headquarters, Panipat after constituting raiding team of Shri Anil Kumar Kaushik, Naib Tehsildar, Panipat and Rajesh Kumar Kanungo as shadow witnesses. The petitioner was apprehended while taking bribe of Rs.5,000/- from one Rakesh in lieu of removing the name of his mother from case FIR No. 1107 dated 31.12.2019 under Sections 313/376/506 IPC registered at Police Station Model Town, Panipat. Subsequently an FIR No. 218 dated 01.03.2020 under Sections 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered against the petitioner and as per report submitted by Shri Satish Vats, HPS, DSP/Hqrs, Panipat, the petitioner was arrested as per law after registration of FIR No. 218 dated 01.03.2020.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgments passed by Supreme Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony V/s. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., (1999) 3 SCC 679 and State Bank of India and others V/s. Neelam Nag and another, (2016) 4 SCT 805 on the preposition that participation of petitioner in departmental proceedings during the pendency of criminal trial, would prejudice the defence in the criminal case and departmental proceedings should be stayed till the criminal trial concludes.

6. Learned counsel for the State has argued that the judgment of State Bank of India's case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the Supreme Court was examining the case of an employee of a bank and in this case there was memorandum of settlement dated 10.04.2002 which protected the employee of bank from necessary departmental proceedings until comple