Back
2024 Supreme(P&H) 906
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
VIKAS BAHL, J.
Mustaq – Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CWP-5111 of 2024
Decided On : 10-04-2024
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Disciplinary Proceedings
Act Referred
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.173, S.161
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.409, S.420, S.120(b), S.201, S.323, S.341, S.34, S.506, S.498(a), S.379(b), S.384, S.195(a), S.313, S.376(2)(n)
LIMITATION ACT : S.5
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT : S.7, S.13(1)(b), S.13(2), S.7(a), S.8
SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES ACT : S.3(2)(v)
Headnote
Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vishal Pundir, Advocate, and Ms. Pooja Sareen, Advocate; Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ankit Yadav, Advocate, Mr. Amit Bansal, Advocate, Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate, Mr. Rahul Gautam, Advocate and Mr. Pankaj Nanhera, Advocate and Mr. Sanjeev Majra, Advocate and Ms. Anjali Sheoran, Advocate, Mr. Rajat Mor, Advocate; Mr. Aditya Yadav, Advocate; Mr. Amandeep Rana, Advocate; Mr. Ankur Lal, Advocate; Mr. Satish Saini, Advocate; Mr. Dinesh Saini, Advocate; Ms. Sehaj Sandhawalia, Advocate; Mr. Jivesh Malik, Advocate, for Mr. Manvender Dalal, Advocate; Ms. Shweta Bawa, Advocate; Mr. Manoj Kumar Sood, Advocate, Mr. P.S. Jammu, Advocate, Mr. Pragyat Bhardwaj, Advocate; For the Petitioners
For the Respondents:Ms. Rajni Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana, Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG, Haryana, and Mr. Amandeep Joshi, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Satyam Tandon, Advocate, and Ms. Nisha Kanojia, Advocate, for the respondents in CWP-21555 of 2023 and CWP-21362 of 2023.
JUDGMENT
Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral)
Present order shall dispose of a bunch of 35 writ petitions as common issue(s) of facts and law arise in all the said cases.
2. This judgment has been divided into the following sections: -
| 1. | Issue to be determined and the common argument of all the learned counsel for the petitioners. | Para 3 Page 8 |
| 2. | Relevant judgments on the issue in question | Para 5 Page 9 |
| 2(i) | Para No. 22 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as "Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.", reported as 1999(3) SCC 679 | Para 5 Page 10 |
| 2(ii) | Relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Indian Overseas Bank, Anna Salai and Anr. v. P.Ganesan and others", reported as 2008(1) SCC 650 | Para 6 Page 12 |
| 2(iii) | Relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors. v. T.Srinivas", reported as 2004(7) SCC 442 | Para 7 Page 15 |
| 2(iv) | Relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "State Bank of India and Ors. v. Neelam Nag and Anr., reported as 2016(9) SCC 491 | Para 8 Page 17 |
| 2(v) | Relevant portion of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.470-2024 titled as "Ravi Kumar v. State of Haryana and others" dismissing the appeal filed against the judgment dated 16.01.2024 passed by this Court in a case involving the same issue as in the present bunch of writ petitions. | Para 10 Page 19 |
| 2(vi) | Relevant portion of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in LPA-252-2021, decided on 23.07.2021 titled as "L/ASI Seema v. State of Haryana and others" dealing with the same issue as raised in the present bunch of writ petitions and SLP against which has been dismissed. | Para 12 Page 22 |
| 2(vii) | Relevant portion of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in "Dr. Balwinder Kumar Sharma v. Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court through Registrar General, CWP-7539- 2021, decided on 28.05.2021, SLP against which has been withdrawn. | Para 14 Page 26 |
| 2(viii) | Relevant portion of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in LPA-239-2022 titled as "Paramjit Kaur v. Punjab and Sind Bank and others" decided on 24.03.2022 | Para 16 Page 28 |
| 3. | Nine principles/conclusions which emerge from the above said judgments crystallized | Para 17 Page 30 |
| 4. | Decision in individual cases after applying the law laid down in the abovesaid judgments and the abovementioned principles/conclusions. | Paras 19 to 198 Page 33 to 163 |
3. The primary issue which arises for consideration in all the above-said writ petitions is as to "whether the regular departmental proceedings are required to be stayed or the examination of the common witnesses is required to be deferred till the culmination of the criminal proceedings or till the said common witnesses are examined in the criminal proceedings, which criminal proceedings as per the case of the petitioners, relate to the same incident, on account of which departmental proceedings have been initiated against the petitioners, in the facts and circumstances of the individual cases". The only prayer pressed by counsel appearing in all the writ petitions is for staying the examination of the common witnesses in the departmental proceedings till the said witnesses are examined in the criminal proceedings. The common argument raised by all the counsel for the petitioners is that there are common witnesses in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal proceedings and the said common witnesses should not be examined in the departmental proceedings till the time they are examined in the criminal proceedings as in case the said witnesses are examined in the departmental proceedings, then, the same would cause prejudice to the case of the petitioners in the criminal proceedings. In support of the said argument, learned cou
