Point of Law : Arguments advanced are clearly devoid of substance, as in present case, at no point of time any departmental enquiry has been held in the past, wherein petitioner has been exonerated, and too contrary for the first time, for his alleged misconduct, petitioner is being asked to appear and face enquiry. Judgment cited is totally out of context and will not come to rescue of petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Pravin Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pranav Ojha, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed interalia for the following reliefs:-

"(A) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner in pursuance of the departmental charge sheet dated 12.01.2022 issued by the respondent no.4 (Annexure no.3 to the writ petition).

(B) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to stay the further departmental disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner in pursuance of the departmental charge sheet dated 12.01.2022."

3. Brief background of the case as is reflected that the petitioner was posted as Constable at Police Chauki-Mehrauli, P.S.-Lar, District-Deoria. First Information Report was lodged on 13.05.2020 against the petitioner and three others, under Sections 389 & 120B IPC and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the same was registered as Case Crime No.101 of 2020 at P.S. Lar, District-Deoria with the allegations that the petitioner along with others were demanding and taking money from truck drivers for passing from that area. Charge sheet in the criminal case has been submitted on 18.01.2021.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of charge sheet against the petitioner, the respondent no.4 has passed order dated 12.01.2022 for initiating departmental proceedings against the petitioner and charge sheet/memo has been filed by respondent no.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that departmental proceedings has been initiated against the petitioner on the same set of facts and evidence as that in the criminal case.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on one hand the petitioner is facing criminal proceedings and on the other hand departmental proceedings have been initiated against him relying upon the same set of facts and evidence, therefore, the departmental proceedings should be kept in abeyance till the conclusion of criminal case.

6. He further submits that the petitioner has not been convicted in the criminal case, hence without conclusion of the criminal case, the departmental proceedings cannot be initiated for the same set of facts and evidence. The criminal case and departmental proceeding are based on same set of fact and same evidence, as such continuance of departmental inquiry, is not at all justifiable and consequentially directive be issued for withholding departmental proceeding till criminal trial is not over. For this preposition, he has placed reliance on Regulation 492 and 493 of U.P. Police Regulations as well as judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Coal Mines Ltd. Reported in 1999 (3) SCC 679 and State Bank of India vs. R.B. Sharma reported in 2004 (7) SCC 27 as well as the judgment of this Court in the case of Dhirendra Kumar Tiwari vs. State of U.P. and Ors. passed in Writ-A No.2705 of 2012 decided on 16.01.2012.

7. On the other hand, learned Standing counsel contended that there is no bar in simultaneous proceeding i.e. criminal proceeding and departmental proceeding can go on simultaneously as area of both departmental proceeding and criminal prosecution are altogether different and as such there is no occasion for staying departmental proceedings hence such writ petition be dismissed.

8. After hearing the arguments advanced by both the parties, it would be appropriate to analyze the relevant part of the judgments, settled proposition of law as well as the relevant regulations in this regard. In the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Coal Mines Ltd. reported in 1999 (3) SCC 679, the Apex Court after taking into consideration various other judgments has held that after taking into account various earlier judgments has held that departmental proceedings and proce