JUDGMENT :

[Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.]

1. Heard Shri Vijay Gautam, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Atipriya Gautam for the petitioner and Shri Apurva Hajela, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. Petitioner, who is working as Constable (Civil Police) at Reserve Police Lines, Chitrakoot, has challenged the departmental proceedings initiated against him in pursuance of departmental charge-sheet dated 27.4.2020, on the ground that with identical charge and on the basis of same evidence the First Information Report was lodged against him on 8.6.2018 and the same was registered as Case Crime No. 53/2018 under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Hamirpur. It is contended 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 are allowed to go on simultaneously. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Coal Mines Ltd., AIR 1999 SC 1416, as well as State Bank of India and others v. R.B. Sharma, (2004) 7 SCC 27. Reliance is also placed upon a decision of this Court in Dhirendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P. and others being Writ Petition No. 2705 of 2012, decided on 16.1.2002, in which following observations have been made :

''After the respective arguments have been advanced, the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Coal Mines Ltd., AIR 1999 SC 1416, is being looked into. In the aforementioned judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court after taking into account various earlier judgments has held that departmental proceedings and proceedings in criminal case can proceed simultaneously, as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. It has been further held that if the departmental proceedings and criminal case are based on similar set of facts and charges in criminal case against delinquent employees is of grave nature which involves complicated questions of fact and law, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till conclusion of criminal case. Whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved or not will depend upon the nature of the offence, and the case lodged against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected during the investigation or as reflected in the charge-sheet, and these facts are not to be considered in isolation but due regard has to be given to the fact that departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. Thus, if complicated questions of fact and law are involved, and departmental proceedings and criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts, only then it is desirable to stay the departmental proceedings, but the said facts are not to be considered in isolation. Paragraph 22 of the judgment being relevant is being quoted below:

''22. The conclusions which are deducible from the various decisions of this Court referred to above are:

(i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in criminal case can proceed simultaneously, as there is no bar in their being conducted, simultaneously, though separately.

(ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and charge in criminal case against delinquent employees is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of criminal case.

(iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case will depend upon the nature of the offence, the nature of case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during the investigation or as reflected in the charge-sheet.

(iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in