Petitioner in writ petition sought quashing of a charge-sheet and stay on departmental proceedings allegedly in conflict with Police Regulations concerning concurrent criminal and departmental inquiries.
Stayed further proceedings pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 29.5.2024 pending counter affidavit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4718 of 2024
Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Navneet Kumar,Amit Verma,Balendu Bhushan Tripathi,Prahlad Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Amit Verma and Sri Navneet Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.S. Tomar, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
By means of this petition the petitioner has prayed following relief :
(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the chargesheet dated 29/05/2024, contained in Annexure no.1, as issued by the Opposite party no. 4 with all consequential service benefits.
(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Opposite parties not to proceed in the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to impugned chargesheet dated 29/05/2024 as issued by the Opposite party no. 4 with all consequential service benefits.
The precise contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in furtherance of one F.I.R. No. 0012 of 2024 u/s 477-A, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Gautampalli, District Lucknow Madhya(Commissionerate Lucknow) which was lodged on 16.2.2024 against the petitioner, who is the sole accused in the aforesaid F.I.R., the departmental inquiry has been initiated against him and impugned charge-sheet dated 29.5.2024 has been issued.
In the impugned F.I.R precisely the allegation against the petitioner is that the present petitioner has interpolated three transfer orders of the employees making forged and fictitious signatures of the then Additional Director General of Police, Sri Piyush Mordiya. The aforesaid F.I.R. has been lodged on the basis of joint inquiry report in the name of preliminary inquiry. The impugned charge-sheet which has been issued by the department on 29.5.2024 wherein the same charge has been levelled against the present petitioner which has been indicated in the F.I.R. While serving charge-sheet the petitioner has been informed about the details of the witnesses and he has been provided documentary evidence, so that he could file his defense reply to the charge-sheet on or before 10.6.2024.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no chargesheet has been filed in the aforesaid crime case and the petitioner filed an application before the departmental officer / prescribed authority to provide some more time to file defense reply to the charge-sheet. Learned counsel has submitted that the defense reply to the charge-sheet has not been filed till date.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that though there are some case laws on the subject that departmental inquiry and criminal proceedings may go on hand-in-hand but in the particular case which is governed by the U.P. Police Regulations and Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 which clearly suggests that on the same set of charge / charges the departmental inquiry as well as the criminal proceedings may not go hand-in-hand. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred various provisions of Police Regulations more particularly Regulation 492, 493 and 496 of the Police Regulations. He has also referred the judgment of Kedar Nath Yadav vs. State of U.P. & others : (2011) 6 ADJ 47 wherein it was held that the Rules of 1991 do not supersede the Regulations contained in Chapter XXXII of the U.P. Police Regulations.
Learned counsel has also cited the judgment of this Court in re: Sanjay Rai vs. State of U.P. and others passed in Writ Petition No. 936 of 2015 (Service Single) wherein this Court has held as under :
"As the departmental chargesheet is based on the same offence under Section 7 of the Police Act 1861 which also constitutes a cognizable offence under the provisions referred hereinabove, therefore, this petitioner is also entitled to the protection of Regulations 483 and 486 of the Police Regulations in the terms already referred earlier. Thus, unless a final report is submitted as referred in Regulation 486(6), it would not be open for the department to proceed departmentally against him based on the same incident. If a chargesheet is filed in the criminal case then also it would not be open for them to proceed against the petitioner, except in the terms already referred earlier i.e. after conclusion of judicial trial considering the fact that the suspension of the petitioner had been revoked on 18.10.2015 but a chargesheet had been issued to him on 21.11.2015 in pursuance to which none of the opposite parties can proceed. It shall be open for the competent authority to consider the suspension of the petitioner from service in terms of Rule 17(1)(b) of the Rules of 1991."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that while deciding the case in re: Kedar Nath Yadav (supra) the Division Bench of this Court has considered the various judgments of the Apex Court which are applicable on the subject.
The matter requires consideration.
Let the counter affidavit be filed within three weeks, rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed in one week.
List this case in the week commencing 15.7.2024 as fresh.
Till the next date of listing the further proceedings pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 29.5.2024, as contained as Annexure no. 1 to the writ petition, shall remain stayed.
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.]
Order Date :- 14.6.2024 Om
Digitally signed by :- OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether departmental proceedings can be stayed pending conclusion of criminal trial when both are based on the same incident.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to protection under Police Regulations 483 and 486 while criminal chargesheet is under consideration.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kedar Nath Yadav vs. State of U.P. & othersRelied on¶13
Kedar Nath Yadav vs. State of U.P. & others : (2011) 6 ADJ 47
Sanjay Rai vs. State of U.P. and othersRelied on¶14
Sanjay Rai vs. State of U.P. and others passed in Writ Petition No. 936 of 2015 (Service Single)
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Vinod Kumar Singh
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.
Rajesh Singh Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
4 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
