Departmental proceedings can continue alongside criminal trials unless complicated legal questions arise; mere overlap of facts does not warrant a stay.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral)

Present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the impugned order dated 03.03.2023 (Annexure P-2) and substance of allegation dated 12.04.2023 (Annexure P-3), vide which departmental inquiry has been initiated against the petitioner. Further, prayer has been made for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents No.3 and 4 not to take any further action on the departmental proceedings/inquiry till the pendency of the criminal trial arising out of FIR No.5 dated 01.03.2023 (Annexure P-1), under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Ambala, Haryana.

2. Brief facts of the case, as emanates from the averments made in the present writ petition and documents annexed with the petition, are that the petitioner was posted as Sub Inspector at Police Post Shahabad, Kurukshetra and a complaint was filed by one Kuldeep Singh, son of Surjit Singh, resident of Rawa, District Kurukshetra, stating that he had taken the Knight Rider Hotel, Barara Road, Shahabad Markanda on rent in December, 2022 and the present petitioner was In-charge of the Police Post Shahabad City and he had been constantly harassing the complainant by calling/meeting him and by threatening the complainant that he would have to pay Rs.10,000/- after 15 days of every month to the petitioner failing which he would not be allowed to run the hotel. It is further stated in the complaint that being upset, the complainant gave Rs.4,000/- to the petitioner as bribe on 09.02.2023 and the petitioner further demanded an amount of Rs.6,000/- to which the complainant replied that he can only pay Rs.4,000/- and the complainant recorded a video/audio in his mobile phone of the incident. On the basis of the said allegations, FIR No.5 dated 01.03.2023 was registered against the petitioner. The Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra, vide order dated 03.03.2023 (Annexure P-2) suspended the petitioner and initiated a departmental inquiry which was entrusted to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ladwa, District Kurukshetra and directed the DSP to conduct the same by holding day-to-day proceedings expeditiously. In pursuance of the same, the inquiry officer initiated the proceedings and in the said proceedings, the petitioner was made aware of the substance of allegations (Annexure P-3) leveled against him. The petitioner was released on bail, vide order dated 11.07.2023 (Annexure P-4), passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra. During the course of arguments, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that as far as the FIR is concerned, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has not been submitted and with respect to the departmental proceeding, out of 6 PWs, 3 PWs have been examined. It is the case of the petitioner in the present petition that the complainant has been examined in the departmental proceedings and he has not supported the case of the department/prosecution although the said statement is not annexed with the present petition. It is in the said background the present writ petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there are two common witnesses i.e., the complainant Kuldeep Singh and Inspector Sumesh, who is the Investigating Officer in the present case. It is further submitted that the complainant has not supported the case of the prosecution and the said Sumesh, who is the investigating officer, be not examined in the departmental proceedings till the time he is examined in the criminal proceedings as the same would prejudice the petitioner, inasmuch as, the defence of the petitioner would be disclosed in case the said witness is examined/cross-examined. In support of the said argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as "Capt. M. Paul