The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant or decline of stay on departmental proceedings depends on the facts of the case, and there is no straight jacket formula for such decisions. The need for expeditious conclusion of departmental proceedings in cases involving serious charges to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service was also emphasized.

JUDGMENT :

JASWANT SINGH, J.

1. Petitioner – Dr. Balwinder Kumar Sharma has filed the instant writ petition seeking quashing of the order/intimation dated 06.11.2019 (Annexure P-9), whereby the representation dated 28.09.2018 (Annexure P-8) submitted by him requesting for stay on departmental enquiry till the conclusion of criminal trial in FIR No. 194 dated 19.09.2017 registered at P.S 03-North, Chandigarh (Annexure P-1), has been rejected.

FACTS:

2. An advertisement No. 6/2016 was notified by Haryana Public Service Commission for recruitment of Subordinate Judicial Officers in the State of Haryana (common called as HCS (Judicial) Examination). The petitioner, who was posted as Registered (Recruitment) on the establishment of respondent No. 1 – High Court, was assigned the duty of assisting the recruitment committee in conduct of the preliminary examination. After the preliminary examination was conducted on 16.07.2017, a complaint was received by respondent No. 1 – High Court on 20.07.2017 alleging therein that the question paper of preliminary examination held on 16.07.2017 was leaked and prayer was made for cancellation of the examination.

3. The matter was taken up on judicial side as a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was filed vide CRM-M- No. 28947 of 2017, titled as “Suman Versus State of Haryana and others”. In the said petition, it was directed that an FIR be registered against the present petitioner and others and further a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was ordered to be constituted to conduct investigation pertaining to the alleged leakage of question paper of HCS (Judicial) Preliminary Examination. Consequently, FIR No. 194 dated 19.09.2017 (P-1) was registered.

4. After registration of FIR, investigation was conducted by the SIT and a challan under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. was submitted before the Special Court at Chandigarh on 04.01.2018 (Annexure P-2).

5. Simultaneously, respondent No. 2 – Registrar Vigilance, Punjab and Haryana High Court served the petitioner a Memorandum dated 15.09.2018 alongwith Articles of Charge and Statement of Imputation (Annexure P-5), list of documents (Annexure P-6) and list of witnesses (Annexure P-7) as per Statutory Rules. The petitioner was given fifteen (15) days' time to respond to the said Memorandum. Instead of responding to same, the petitioner gave a written application dated 28.09.2018 (P-8) requesting the Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court for staying the proposed departmental proceedings initiated vide memorandum dated 15.09.2018 till the decision of criminal proceedings as the challan already stands submitted before the Criminal Court. It is relevant to mention that during the pendency of the said application/request, charges have also been framed vide order dated 31.01.2020 (Annexure P-11).

6. The aforesaid application dated 28.09.2018 (P-8) has been rejected vide order dated 06.11.2019 (P-9), which has been impugned before this Court.

ARGUMENTS BY COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER:

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following arguments:

- A bare perusal of the charges framed by the Criminal Court and the memorandum issued by respondent No. 2 would show that both are based on same set of facts as well as documentary evidence and therefore both cannot continue simultaneously because the defence of petitioner would be prejudiced in criminal trial if the departmental enquiry is permitted to continue. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon the Judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Capt. M Paul Anthony Versus Bharat Gold Mines Ltd (1999) 3 SCC 679;

- Allegations levelled and facts in departmental enquiry and those forming basis of criminal trial are same/identical as the evidence/documents as well as witnesses are same;

- Complicated questions of fact and law are involved, and therefore, same is beyond the limited scope of departmental enquiry, being summary in nature;

- In the alternative, in case the departmental enquiry cannot be stayed till