Disciplinary and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously based on the same set of facts, and the different standards of proof required for each type of proceeding must be considered.

Headnote:
Charge-sheet - Disciplinary Proceedings - The court refused to quash the charge-sheet in disciplinary proceedings against a Sub-Inspector of Police, citing settled law that disciplinary and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously based on the same set of facts. The court emphasized the different standards of proof required in disciplinary and criminal proceedings, referencing relevant case law.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector of Police, sought to quash the charge-sheet in disciplinary proceedings, arguing that the same incident was being investigated by the C.B.I and was pending before a criminal court. The petitioner contended that the disciplinary proceedings should be stayed as they were grounded on the same set of facts.
Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that there was no ground to quash the charge-sheet at that stage. The court also directed the petitioner to point out if they believed the disciplinary proceedings were grounded on the same set of facts, allowing the disciplinary authority to entertain such a request.
Issues: The main issue was whether the charge-sheet in the disciplinary proceedings should be quashed due to the same incident being investigated by the C.B.I and pending before a criminal court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the settled law that disciplinary and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously based on the same set of facts. It highlighted the different standards of proof required in disciplinary and criminal proceedings, referencing relevant case law to support its decision.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court refused to quash the charge-sheet at that stage.

The petitioner is a Sub-Inspector of Police against whom a charge-sheet has been served and he has come up for quashing of the said charge-sheet in the disciplinary proceedings on the ground that same incident has been investigated by the C.B.I and the matter is pending before a criminal Court. He contends that the disciplinary proceedings should be stayed. It is further submitted that since the proceedings are grounded on the same set of facts, therefore, the prayer of the petitioner should be accepted. The law on this issue is settled and the authorities are at discretion to consider the same. Reference may had to the decision in the case of Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and others reported in 2009 (2) SCC 570 and in the case of Managing Director, State Bank of Hyderabad and another v. P. Kata Rao reported in AIR 2008 SC 2146 and the standard of proof required for the purpose of proceeding in a disciplinary enquiry as against that of a criminal proceeding is different. Paragraph 20 of P. Kata Rao's case (supra) is quoted below:

"The legal principle enunciated to the effect that on the same set of facts the delinquent shall not be proceeded in a departmental proceedings and in a criminal case simultaneously, has, however, been deviated from. The dicta of this Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Another [(1999) 3 SCC 679] : (AIR 1999 SC 1416), however, remains unshaken although the applicability thereof had been found to be dependent on the fact situation obtaining in each case."

2. In the event the petitioner believes it to be grounded on the same set of facts it shall be pointed out before the disciplinary authority who is at liberty to entertain such a request.

3. There is no ground to quash the charge-sheet at this stage. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2010 Supreme(All) 370

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURTA.P.Sahi, J.Syed Mohammad Abbas -AppellantVersusState of U.P. and Ors. -RespondentC. M. W. P. No. 3958 of 2010Decided On : 29-01-2010

Disciplinary and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously based on the same set of facts, and the different standards of proof required for each type of proceeding must be considered.

Login now and unlock premium legal research

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
A.P.Sahi, J.
Syed Mohammad Abbas -Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors. -Respondent
C. M. W. P. No. 3958 of 2010
Decided On : 29-01-2010