Dismissed

Akhtar Khan v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Aug 2019CWP/22624/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner sought a stay on departmental inquiry during a pending criminal trial due to common witnesses. The Court held that departmental inquiry should not examine common witnesses until examined in criminal proceedings to protect the defense, warning against delays.

What did the court decide?

Department shall not examine common/identical witnesses until they are examined in the criminal proceedings first.

Akhtar Khan Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2019)

¶1

YOGESH SHARMA 2019.09.02 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1

¶2

CWP-22624-2019 (O&M)

¶3

152

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

CWP-22624-2019 (O&M) Date of decision : 26.08.2019

Akhtar Khan

... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶12

Present: Mr. Ravi Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

¶14

AMIT RAWAL, J. (ORAL)

¶15

Notice of motion.

¶16

On asking of the Court, Ms. Shruti Jain Goyal, DAG, Haryana, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent(s)/State.

¶17

The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents not to proceed with the department inquiry during pendency of criminal trial in FIR No.01 dated 04.01.2019 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, registered at Police Station SVB Faridabad.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in both departmental and criminal proceedings, most of the witnesses are common/identical. In case the witnesses are examined in departmental proceedings, then it will affect his right in defending the criminal

¶19

YOGESH SHARMA 2019.09.02 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2

¶20

CWP-22624-2019 (O&M)

¶21

proceedings. In support of his contentions, reliance has been placed upon the ratio decidendi culled out by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in “Capt. M. Paul Anthony V/s Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.” 1999 (2) SCT 660.

¶22

Learned State Counsel submitted that there is no bar for continuation of departmental enquiry along with criminal case, which can be initiated and go side by side, but did not dispute the fact that few of the witnesses are common/identical in the proceedings.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for parties, appraised paper book and of view that since few of witnesses are common/identical in both the proceedings, the Department shall not examine the common/identical witnesses, until and unless, they examined in the criminal proceedings first, as there is perceptible apprehension of disclosing the defence.

¶24

It is made clear that in case, the petitioner is found to delaying in cross-examination of same set of the witnesses in the criminal proceedings, this order will not come in the way of the Department to examine the said witnesses.

¶25

With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands

¶26

disposed of.

¶27

( AMIT RAWAL ) 26.08.2019 JUDGE Yogesh Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/ No Whether Reportable Yes/ No

¶28

Yogesh Sharma

Akhtar Khan v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhtar Khan v. State of Haryana and Ors.

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

Surender Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Another

Ashok Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others

Anil Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Rani Arora Vs State of Haryana and Others

Ram Mehar Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others

Sajjan Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others