Proceedings in criminal case and departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously except where both are based on the same set of facts and evidence. The purpose of departmental inquiry and criminal prosecution are different, and the court emphasized the need for prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Karamjit Singh, J. - Case has been heard through video conferencing on account of COVID-19 Pandemic.

2. This appeal has been preferred by appellant against the order dated 4.2.2021 passed by learned Single Judge whereby CWP-14185-2021 filed by the appellant for quashing impugned order dated 4.3.2020 (Annexure P-2) vide which regular inquiry has been ordered by respondent No.3 and charge-sheet dated 10.4.2020 (Annexure P-3) vide which respondent No.4 has initiated the departmental inquiry against the appellant on the basis of FIR No.218 dated 1.3.2020 under Sections 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act of 1988'), Police Station Model Town, Panipat (Annexure P-1) was dismissed.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined Police Department of Haryana on 23.2.2002 as Lady Constable and was promoted as Head Constable on 8.5.2012 and was further promoted as Assistant Sub-Inspector on 28.10.2016. She was having clean service record except one censure which was given on account of delay in submitting the charge-sheet. However, when she was posted at Panipat, FIR No.218 dated 1.3.2020 under Sections 7/13 of the Act of 1988 was registered against her on the allegations that she demanded Rs. 5,000/- from Rakesh Kumar for exonerating his mother from the FIR got registered against said Rakesh Kumar by his wife. The trap was laid and the appellant was apprehended red-handed and bribe money of Rs. 5,000/- was recovered in the presence of shadow witnesses and punter. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the appellant was placed under suspension vide order dated 4.3.2020 (Annexure P-2). The regular departmental inquiry was initiated against her by respondent No.3. Subsequently, she was reinstated in service vide order dated 24.7.2020. In the meantime, she was served charge-sheet dated 10.4.2020 (Annexure P-3).

4. The appellant challenged the aforesaid departmental actions by filing writ petition. In the writ petition, the appellant denied all the allegations levelled against her by the department in the charge-sheet. The appellant also took plea that she was made scapegoat and that she never demanded or accepted any bribe from Rakesh Kumar.

5. The writ petition was challenged by respondents No.1 to 4 and they filed written statement challenging the contentions raised by the appellant in the writ petition.

6. After hearing both the parties, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition with the following observations:-

"In the facts of the present case, the petitioner was working as ASI and an FIR No.218 was registered on 01.03.2020. The challan has been presented as informed by learned counsel for the respondent-State. During the pandemic of COVID 19, the trial is likely to take some time to conclude. However the petitioner being part of disciplined department, the departmental proceedings cannot be stayed to await decision of the criminal proceedings and even a direction cannot be given to trial Court to examine the witnesses expeditiously in the prevailing situation.

Hence, writ petition is dismissed."

7. Being dissatisfied, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

8. We have heard the counsel for the appellant as well as State counsel who was having advance copy of the appeal.

9. The only grievance of the counsel for the appellant is that the criminal case and the departmental proceedings against the appellant cannot proceed simultaneously as both the said proceedings are based on same set of facts and evidence. He further elaborated that if the departmental proceedings and criminal case against the appellant are allowed to proceed simultaneously, then the defence of the appellant will be prejudiced as the appellant will have to disclose her defence in advance in the departmental proceedings which are going to be conducted at a much fast pace then the proceedings in the criminal trial. In support of his contention the counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Capt. M. Paul Anth