Point of law : Courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record.

JUDGMENT :

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to correct the name of respondent no.4 as Smt. Pooja Devi in place of Smt. Pushpa Devi in the array of parties during the course of the day.

2. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajnish Kumar Rai, learned counsels for the respondent nos. 1 to 3.

3. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the inquiry report dated 28.09.2021 submitted by respondent no.3 where by certain allegations has been made against the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was posted as Constable in RPF post/Belgachia, Metro Railway, Kolkata and discharging his duties upto the satisfaction of his superior. The respondent no.4, Smt. Pooja Devi (wife of the petitioner), filed N.C.R. against the petitioner on 10.09.2020, which was registered as N.C.R. No. 82 of 2020, under Section 494 IPC. Thereafter, again Smt. Pooja Devi filed an application U/s 155(2) Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate, Saidpur District-Ghazipur, under Section 494 IPC. On the aforesaid application, the concerned Judicial Magistrate passed order dated 20.10.2020 directing the concerned Station House Officer to investigate the matter. The criminal proceedings with respect to the aforesaid aspect was lodged with the allegations that the petitioner had married for the second time with one Km. Archana Yadav, which was totally biased and false allegation.

5. Though the criminal proceedings is still pending against the petitioner, relying on the same set of facts and evidence, the department has proceeded to initiate the departmental proceedings against the petitioner. Subsequently, show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner on 05.03.2021 and charge sheet has also been issued against him on 30.04.2021.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent no.3 has submitted the impugned inquiry report dated 28.09.2021 without considering the material facts that the criminal proceedings is still pending against the petitioner before the court below for the same cause of action. He further submits that since the allegations are identical and the basis to proceed both departmentally and in criminal trial are same, therefore, prejudice would be caused to the petitioner in case disciplinary proceedings and criminal trial is allowed to go on simultaneously, therefore, the disciplinary proceedings are liable to be quashed.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3 submits that the acquittal by the criminal court does not vitiate the order of the disciplinary authority while passing the punishment order against the petitioner. Also the findings recorded by the criminal court are not binding, for the purpose of disciplinary proceedings against a delinquent. He further submits that the scope of judicial review is limited to the extent that proceedings have been conducted in accordance with law as it lies against the decision making procedure and not against the decision itself. No illegality in the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer after holding the enquiry. The Court cannot examine the inquiry report or the order of the disciplinary authority as an appellate authority, rather it has to satisfy itself that the enquiry has been conducted in accordance with law. Thus, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and scanned the records, the Court finds that the position of law is well settled regarding that the departmental proceedings and the criminal proceedings can go on simultaneously, except where a departmental proceeding and a criminal proceeding are based on the same set of facts and evidence and where the witnesses are common in the said cases, the Court has to decide taking into account the said features of the case as to whether simultaneously continuance of both the proceedings would be appropriate and proper or not.

9. In the