Simultaneous departmental and criminal proceedings can proceed if based on identical or similar facts, but potential prejudice to the delinquent must be considered.

JUDGMENT :

1. The legal issue which requires consideration of this Court is that : ‘whether departmental disciplinary proceedings initiated under Rule (14) 1 of U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short “Rules, 1991”) can proceed simultaneously along with criminal proceedings initiated in pursuance of a first information lodged against same delinquent, arising out of same or similar facts?’.

2. Sri P.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri G.N. Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents have relied upon different judgments passed by this Court and Supreme Court in support of their respective submissions. The submission of learned counsel for petitioners is that, there is an absolute bar to proceed with departmental disciplinary proceedings till the trial arising out of criminal proceedings is concluded, whereas stand of the State is that bar, if any, is not absolute. Both counsel have placed different interpretation of Regulations 486, 492, and 493 of Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations in their favour.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners has relied upon judgment passed by the coordinate Bench at Lucknow in Sanjay Rai Vs. State of U.P. and others and other connected cases, 2016 LawSuit(All) 3133 wherein it has been held that :-

“28. From the above discussion, the protections made available to police officers in departmental proceedings, where the offence, apart from being one under Section 7 of the Act 1861 is also a cognizable or a non-cognizable offence under the Criminal Law, becomes clear. In the event of a cognizable offence, it is mandatory to lodge an F.I.R. In a case involving a cognizable offence the protections under Regulation 486(I) are available as mentioned hereinabove, i.e. police officer cannot be subjected to disciplinary action unless an FIR is lodged, investigation is done, there is reason to believe that the charge is true, but, on account of insufficiency of evidence or for any other reason, final report is submitted and is accepted under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Unless this happens, the departmental proceedings cannot go on. Furthermore, if a chargesheet is filed in the criminal case, that is the charges are not only believed to be true but there is evidence to establish the same then also the disciplinary proceedings cannot go on, as, the intent of the regulations is that the police personnel should have the benefit of a trial by a competent Court of Criminal Jurisdiction so as to protect them from mala fide action. There is nothing in the regulations which permits the holding of a departmental inquiry where a chargesheet has been filed for commission of a cognizable criminal offence before a Court of competent Criminal jurisdiction.

29. In this context the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab vs Raj Kumar, (1988) 1 SCC 701; State of U.P. and others vs Surender Pal, (1989) 2 SCC 470; and State of U.P and others vs. Babu Ram Upadhyay, AIR 1961 SC 751, where the Supreme Court had the occasion to consider the object and purport of regulation 486 of the UP Police regulations and a similar provision as was existing in the State of Punjab, were considered, may be referred. The Supreme Court in the case of Babu Ram Upadhyaya (supra) mentioned the object behind Regulation 486 of the U.P. Police regulations in para 30 which reads as under :

"30. Now what is the object of rule I of para. 486 of the Police Regulations? In our opinion, it is conceived not only to enable the Superintendent of Police to gather information but also to protect the interests of subordinate officers against whom departmental trial is sought to be held. After making the necessary investigation under chapter XIV of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Superintendent of Police may as well come to the conclusion that the officer concerned is innocent, and on that basis drop the entire proceedings. He may also hold that it is a fit case for criminal prosecuti