Disposed

Manoj Kumar Rastogi v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC18 Nov 2021WRIA/13390/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of a departmental charge sheet, directing the disciplinary authority to decide the matter considering factors of prejudice and the nature of the criminal case within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No. 3 to take a decision on the departmental charge sheet considering the cited case laws within three months.

Manoj Kumar Rastogi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13390 of 2021 Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Rastogi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Mishra,Gaurav Bishan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶5

Petitioner is seeking quashing of the departmental charge sheet dated 13.05.2021 issued under Rule 14(1) of the U.P. Police Officer of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991.

¶6

According to the petitioner, some criminal case is pending against them, therefore, during the pendency of criminal proceedings departmental charge sheet should have been stayed.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.2705 of 2012, Dhirendra Kumar Tiwari vs. State of U.P. and others and the Court after discussing several case laws by its order dated 16.1.2012 had directed as under:-

¶8

"Whether disciplinary enquiry is to continue at all or not, and whether result of criminal trial is to be awaited, is to be decided, by the authority-in-charge of disciplinary matter, keeping in view over all fact and situation as prevailing on the spot, and said issues will have to be answered the parameter provided for. Request of petitioners be considered within next eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

¶9

With these observations, writ petition is disposed of."

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Startzen Toyotetsu India P. Ltd., vs. Girish V others reported in JT 2014 (2) SC 462 . The relevant portion of the judgment has been quoted in para-33 of the writ petition which reads as under:-

¶11

"no legal bar for both proceedings to go on simultaneously unless thee is a likelihood of the employee suffering prejudice in the criminal trial. What is significant is that the likelihood of prejudice itself is hedged by providing that not only should be the charge be grave but even the case must involve complicated questions of law and fact. Stay of proceedings at any rate cannot and should not be a matter of course".

¶12

In view of the directions given by the learned Single Judge in the case of Dhirendra Kumar Tiwari (surpa) this matter requires to be considered by the disciplinary authority.

¶13

This writ petition is therefore disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.3, Superintendent of Police, Railways, GRP Jhansi Anubhag Jhansi, District Jhansi to take a decision in the matter in the light of the judgement of Dhirendra Kumar Tiwari (supra) and M/s Startzen Toyotetsu India P.Ltd. (supra) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order in his office.

¶14

Order Date :- 18.11.2021 Pravin

Manoj Kumar Rastogi v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Rastogi v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India Vs Kamlesh Baboo

U.P. Sugarcane Research Council Shahjahanpur Thru Director Vs Presiding Officer Labour Court Bareilly and Another

U.P.S.R.T.C.Thru Its R.M. Jhansi Vs B.L. Verma and Another

Sri Gautam Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Uma Shankar Dixit Vs State of U.P. through Its Principal Secretary,Public Works Department U.P. Govt.and 4 Others

Smt. Noorjaha Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others