The nature of the criminal charge and the delay in its disposal are crucial factors in deciding whether to stay the departmental proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA J.

1. Petitioner who is serving as a Head Constable under the Haryana Police has filed the instant petition assailing communication dated Nil (Annexure P-4) issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Traffic Highway, Gurugram, in terms of which departmental proceedings stand initiated against him. Impugned communication at Annexure P-4 is in the nature of a charge-sheet. Primary ground of challenge is that on the same set of allegations FIR No. 506 dated 28.07.2020 under Sections 186, 332, 353 and 506 IPC stands registered against the petitioner at Police Station Shivaji Nagar Colony, District Rohtak.

2. Learned Senior counsel at the very outset submits that he is not pressing the challenge to the impugned charge-sheet at Annexure P-4 but would confine the scope of the instant writ petition only as regards keeping the departmental proceedings in abeyance till such time the criminal trial against the petitioner does not conclude.

3. Brief facts pleaded are that marriage of the petitioner was solemnized in the year 2003 and two children were born out of wedlock. However due to temperamental differences wife of the petitioner started living separately since May 2019. On 28.07.2020 wife of the petitioner got lodged an FIR against the petitioner with an ill-motive to settle scores. It is asserted that essentially a matrimonial dispute between husband and wife has been given the colour of a criminal offence. After registration of the FIR, challan was presented on 01.10.2020 and the petitioner now is facing trial.

4. Learned Senior counsel vehemently contends that the departmental proceedings ought to be held in abeyance pending criminal prosecution as both these proceedings are based on the same facts and allegations. It is urged that even the evidence to be produced in both the proceedings would be identical. It is argued that if the departmental enquiry pursuant to the impugned communication at Annexure P-4 is permitted to continue the defence of the employee in the criminal case would be prejudiced.

5. Counsel has been heard at length and pleadings on record have been perused.

6. The issue as to whether departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case launched on the basis of the same set of facts can be continued simultaneously is no longer res-integra.

7. In Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. (1999) 3 SCC 679 the same very issue was dealt with by the Apex Court and the following principles were laid down:-

(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 mentioned 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, administration may get rid of him