ORDER

1. This intra Court appeal takes exception to order dated 24.6.2021, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 19661 of 2018, whereby appellant's petition has been dismissed.

2. The appellant-petitioner approached writ court seeking direction to the respondents to drop the departmental proceedings till conclusion of the criminal proceedings pending against him pursuant to the F.I.R. dated 18.9.2011. The case of the appellant-petitioner is that he was posted as Thana Incharge-cum-Traffic Inspector at Police Station Cant. District Sagar. On an allegation against him that he was illegally stopping the vehicles and forcefully extracting the money from the truck drivers, an F.I.R. at Crime No.515/2011 for offences punishable under sections 341 and 384 of the I.P.C was registered against him at Police Station Cant. District Sagar. After investigation, the chargesheet was filed on 30.9.2015 before the Court of competent jurisdiction.

On 24.6.2015, a departmental charge sheet was also issued to him for alleged violation of paras-634 and 637(d) of the Police Regulations. According to the appellant-petitioner, the charge-sheet dated 24.6.2015 and the allegations mentioned in the F.I.R are similar and the witnesses are also almost same, therefore, till the criminal case is concluded, the departmental proceedings be postponed.

3. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has noted that the criminal case for the alleged offences punishable under sections 341 and 384 of the I.P.C.is for the purpose of determining whether the allegations of extortion of money from the truck drivers are proved, whereas, in the departmental inquiry it is to be seen whether the appellant-petitioner has made correct entries in the General Diary or not. The learned Single Judge has also noted that though there may be some common witnesses, however, the nature of allegations and the trial of both the proceedings do not suggest that any prejudice would be caused to the appellant-petitioner if both the proceedings are conducted simultaneously. The judgment relied on by the appellant-petitioner in the case of M.Paul Anthony v. Bharat God Mines Ltd. and another [(1993) 3 SCC 679] was also distinguished by the learned Single Judge on the aforesaid facts.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. We are in full agreement with the reasons given by the learned Single Judge. In the case of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited v. Girish V. and others [(2014) 3 SCC 636] ,the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that there is no bar in conducting the disciplinary proceedings and criminal trial simultaneously. A perusal of the charge-sheet further shows that the allegation against the appellant-petitioner was for erroneously and incorrectly making entries in the Rojnamcha at around 11.30 P.M.on the date of incident with an object to create defense for the criminal case. It is fairly well settled that the approach and objective in criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings are altogether distinct and different. In the disciplinary proceedings, the primary question is whether an employee is guilty of such conduct as would merit action against him, whereas, in criminal proceedings the question is whether the offence registered against him are established and, if established, what sentence should be imposed upon him. The standard of proof, the mode of enquiry and the rule governing the enquiry and trial are conceptually different. (See:Lalit Popli v. Canara Bank and others) [(2003) 3 SCC 583.]

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.Paul Anthony1 was of the opinion that the departmental proceedings and the proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar. However, it is desirable to stay departmental inquiry till conclusion of the criminal case if the departmental proceedings and criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in a criminal case