The distinction between the nature of inquiry and investigation in departmental proceedings and criminal case, and the different standards of proof required in each.

JUDGMENT

Lok Pal Singh, J. - By means of present writ petition, petitioner has sought following relief:

(i) To summon the complete record pertaining to the case.

(ii) To issue the writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the charge sheet dated 24.12.2019.

2. Petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector in Special Branch, Intelligence Department of Police in the year 2009. The batchmate of the petitioner, namely, Yogesh Kumar, who was then posted at Rudraprayag called on her mobile phone on 31.06.2018 at about 8:00 PM and told her that one of his acquaintance, namely, Ramesh/Rakesh Kumar who is the resident of Rishikesh is a good source to furnish information about the foreigners which will help her in stopping the crime against foreigners and she can give good information to her officers with his help. On 5/6.07.2018, the petitioner received a call from SubInspector Yogesh Kumar and told the petitioner that he has some information about foreigners which he wants to give to the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner informed about the same to Special Intelligence Officer, Rishikesh who asked her to work on that information and report him thereafter but she did not get any further information from Ramesh/Rakesh Kumar. Thereafter, on 12.07.2018, Ramesh/Rakesh Kumar called the petitioner and asked her to meet at Ram Jhula near Muni Ki Reti. When the petitioner reached there Ramesh/Rakesh Kumar met her and told her that the foreigners are taught meditation by Vedansh International Yoga Academy after administration of drugs and the said academy issue frivolous Yoga Certificate and deceive them. On the same day, he went with the petitioner and showed her the location of the institute. In the said institute, she met a person who was the brother of Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, the Director of Institute. In the meantime, the informer called three more person i.e. two male and one female, out of these three person, Abhishek and Dipika, who are husband and wife and they were exmangers of the said institute and were expelled due to some private dispute. They told that the said institute issues fake certificate. Thereafter, the petitioner received a call from Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, who told that Abhishek has taken money from him. After 15 days, Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Pandey lodged an F.I.R. No. 59 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Section 388/120-B of I.P.C. and 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioner and five other persons alleging therein that they demanded a sum of Rs. 10 lacs from him out of which he paid a sum of Rs. 5 lacs to them. The petitioner filed WPCRL No. 1415 of 2018 for quashing of said F.I.R. This Court vide order dated 01.08.2018 granted interim protection to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was attached to the office of respondent no.2. The departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner and a show cause notice was issued to her. The petitioner replied to the said show cause notice. After completion of departmental enquiry, on 24.12.2019, a charge sheet has been issued levelling charges against the petitioner, which reads as under:

(i) While the petitioner was on duty in the office of Special Intelligence Officer, Rishikesh, District Dehradun upon the receipt of alleged anomalies in the Vedansha International Yoga Academy, Tapowan, Muni Ki Reti, the petitioner on her own, without informing her officer/without taking permission from her officer, went for the investigation. Even after the passage of many days of such investigation, she has not given any sort of information/report to her officer.

(ii) Apart from the aforesaid, the petitioner has not taken any subordinate with her and went away with the informer who was earlier unknown to the petitioner and she kept him with her during the entire checking.

3. The petitioner filed the present petition for quashing of charge sheet dated 24.12.2019 inter alia on the ground that on similar set of facts, a criminal case is going