Dismissed

Shri Ramesh S v. Vs the Additional Commissioner of Police

Karnataka HC13 Nov 2024WP/30021/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A police sub-inspector sought deferral of his departmental enquiry until completion of a related criminal trial. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's refusal, holding disciplinary and criminal proceedings should ordinarily run concurrently, and directed completion of the enquiry within six months.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; disciplinary enquiry to be completed within six months with compliance report to Registrar General.

Shri Ramesh S v Vs the Additional Commissioner of… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:45926-DB WP No. 30021 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024 PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT PETITION NO. 30021 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHRI RAMESH S.V., S/O VENKATARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, POLICE SUB INSPECTOR, VVIP SECURITY, O/O DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001 R/AT NO.47, MARUTHI LAYOUT, 3^RD MAIN, 5^TH CROSS, BASAPURA ELECTRONIC CITY, BENGALURU - 560 100.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR BAJANTRI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (ADMINISTRATION) O/O THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ENQUIRY OFFICER, SUBRAMANYAPURA SUB DIVISION K.S. LAYOUT, BENGALURU CITY - 560 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. KHAMROZ KHAN, AGA)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:45926-DB WP No. 30021 of 2024

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.10.2024 PASSED BY THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION No. 4656/2024 (VIDE ANNEXURE-A) AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION AS PRAYED FOR (VIDE ANNEXUREB) AND ETC.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)

¶24

The Police Sub-Inspector who has been facing grave

¶25

charges both in the disciplinary proceeding and in the criminal proceeding is grieving against the State Administrative Tribunal's order dated 28.10.2024 by which his Application No.4656/2024 has been negatived. In the said application he had prayed for a direction to the respondents “… to defer the Disciplinary enquiry

¶26

proceedings against the applicant initiated pursuant to the charge memo bearing No.572/ -1/ /2023 dated 02.12.2023 issued by 1^st respondent-Disciplinary Authority vide Annexure-A6 till completion of evidences of

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:45926-DB WP No. 30021 of 2024

¶28

prosecution witnesses in the pending criminal case in Crime No.133/2023, in the interest of justice and equity;…”.

¶29

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶30

vehemently argues that the subject matter of disciplinary enquiry happens to be subject matter in the criminal case in Spl. CC No.1921/2023 wherein charge sheet has been filed for the offences 498A & 304B of IPC, Sec. 3 & 4 of D.P. Act and Sec.3(2)(v) of SC & ST Prevention of Attrocities Act, 1989; the witnesses in one proceeding would possibly be the witnesses in the other; continuation of disciplinary proceedings till after trial is accomplished in

¶31

the criminal case, would prejudice petitioner’s defence in both the cases and therefore disciplinary enquiry need to be deferred till after criminal trial is completed. This aspect having not been properly addressed by the Tribunal, he argues, impugned order has error apparent on it's face warranting interference of this Court.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:45926-DB WP No. 30021 of 2024

¶34

Learned AGA on request appearing for the respondents vehemently opposes the petition contending that law relating to parallel proceedings of the kind has been fairly settled precedent by precedent; the nature, process and purpose of the two proceedings are different from each other; the quantum & quality of evidence to be tendered in a D.E. as also the rules of burden of proof do vary qua those in criminal proceedings of the kind; it is not known how long the criminal proceeding would take for its conclusion; no extraordinary case is made out to treat the case of petitioner as an exception for according favourable treatment. All these aspects having been duly considered by the Tribunal, there is least scope for the interference of Writ Court in the matter.

¶35

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, we decline indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the submission of the learned AGA appearing for the official respondents. Ordinarily, the purpose, process & procedure of both the D.E. & Criminal proceedings being

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:45926-DB WP No. 30021 of 2024

¶37

different from each other, both should run concurrently

¶38

subject to all just exceptions vide M. PAL ANTHONY vs. BHARAT GOLD MINES LIMITED¹ . Despite vehement submission, learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to demonstrate what prejudice would be occasioned to his client should Disciplinary Enquiry is continued pending criminal trial. The Apex Court has time & again said that a mere pendency of criminal proceeding cannot be a ground for halting the departmental enquiry

¶39

vide INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK vs. P.GANESAN² . Regard being had to mounting pendency of criminal cases in the courts, it is not possible even to make a wild guess as to how long the subject criminal case would take for its culmination into acquittal/conviction; therefore halting the disciplinary enquiry on that ground would cause disservice to the public interest. Cause of justice in the case would be met more by allowing the disciplinary enquiry to go on than to keep it pending for an indefinite period of time i.e.,

¶40

1 (1999) 3 SCC 679

¶41

2 (2008) 1 SCC 650

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:45926-DB WP No. 30021 of 2024

¶43

till the conclusion of criminal trial. This accords with the

¶44

inner voice of Apex Court decision in STANZEN TOYOTETSU INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. GIRISH V. & OTHERS³ .

¶45

The Tribunal in justification of denying relief to the petitioner has rightly observed at para 6 of the impugned order as under:

¶46

“6. We have carefully gone through the factual matrix of this We case, so also, decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant which are referred in the pleading and 3 more decisions produced by the learned counsel for the applicant along with memo dated 18.10.2024 but in the application averments what are the complicated questions of law and facts involved in the case are not at all narrated by the applicant, simple and on general grounds sought for deferring the enquiry proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal proceedings. But perusing the factual matrix in the decisions relied upon by the applicant and factual matrix involved in the case on hand they are not exactly one and the same. Looking to the pleadings by the applicant in this particular case wherein he has stated that charge sheet has been filed before the jurisdictional court on 28.08.2023 after completing the investigation which is produced vide Annexure-A5. Applicant himself has stated

¶47

3 (2014) 3 SCC 636

¶48

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:45926-DB WP No. 30021 of 2024

¶49

that there are totally 49 witnesses were cited on behalf of the prosecution. When the charge sheet is filed on 28.08.2023 this application is filed by the applicant on 20.09.2024 what is the progress in the criminal case from 28.08.2023 to 20.09.2024 i.e. nearly for a period of 1 year on which date the application is filed, there is no details furnished by the applicant about the progress in the criminal case. If the criminal case is go on adjourning without any progress of recording of evidence this disciplinary enquiry proceedings cannot be deferred definitely.”

¶50

In the above circumstances, this petition being devoid of merits is liable to be and accordingly rejected, costs having been made easy. The subject disciplinary enquiry shall be accomplished and Compliance Report shall be filed before the Registrar General of this Court within an outer limit of six months failing which the matter shall be viewed seriously.

¶51

Sd/(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

¶52

Sd/(C M JOSHI) JUDGE

¶53

YN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Shri Ramesh S v. Vs the Additional Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Ramesh S v. Vs the Additional Commissioner of Police

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

J. Jagannathan Vs the General Manager

Union of India Vs Sri.Simon K John

Ramachandra. C. N. Vs the State of Karnataka

Rajesh B Vs Union of India

Sri. Mahesha. a Vs State of Karnataka

Mac- Precitec India Vs Smt Rekha S