This intra Court appeal takes exception to order dated

24.06.2021, 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 18.09.2011. 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 section 341 and 384 of the I.P.C was registered against him at

Police Station Cant. District Sagar. After investigation, the charge-

sheet was filed on 30.09.2015 before the court of competent

jurisdiction.

On 24.06.2015, a departmental charge sheet was also issued to

him for alleged violation of para-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.

The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has

noted that the criminal case for the alleged offences punishable under

- 3 -

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 Vs. Bharat God Mines Ltd. and another¹

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

Vs. Girish V. and others²,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

1 (1993) 3 SCC 679

2 (2014) 3 SCC 636

- 4 -

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 Vs. Canara Bank and

others)³.

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 charg