Disposed

Anil Kumar v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Aug 2019CWP/8666/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that departmental proceedings cannot examine common or identical witnesses unless they have been examined in the pending criminal proceedings first, directing the department to continue proceedings only on other sets of witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Department not to examine common/identical witnesses in departmental proceedings until and unless examined in criminal proceedings first.

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

¶1

-1-

¶2

CWP No.8666 of 2019 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.8666 of 2019 (O&M) Date of Decision.22.08.2019

Anil Kumar

...Petitioner

State of Haryana and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

Present: Mr. Suresh Ahlawat, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Harish Nain, AAG, Haryana.

¶12

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶13

-.-

¶14

AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL)

¶15

Petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing order dated 18.05.2018 (Annexure P-4) and 27.02.2019 (Annexure P-7) whereby departmental proceedings have been allowed to be continued during pendency of criminal proceedings in case FIR No.7 dated 29.03.2017 under Sections 7, 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station, SVB Gurugram.

¶16

Learned counsel for 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 their rights in defending the criminal proceedings. He relies upon notice of motion order dated 01.03.2013 passed in CWP No.3516 of 2013 titled as “Satbir Singh V/s State of Haryana and others”, whereby departmental proceedings were ordered to be kept in abeyance.

¶17

PANKAJ KUMAR 2019.08.27 14:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CWP No.8666 of 2019 (O&M)

¶19

-2-

¶20

Keeping in view the aforementioned facts and circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to the Department not to examine the common/identical witnesses, until and unless, they examined in the criminal proceedings first, whereas the departmental proceedings qua other set of witnesses, may continue.

¶21

It is made clear that in case petitioner is found to be involved in delaying tactics 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.

¶22

August 22, 2019		(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE
Pankaj*	Whether speaking/reasoned	Yes
	Whether reportable	No

¶23

PANKAJ KUMAR 2019.08.27 14:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Anil Kumar v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Roshni Devi Vs State of Haryana and Others

Nisha Rani Vs State of Haryana and Others

Vishal Kumar and Others Vs Guru Jambheshwar University of Science and Technology Hissar through Its Registrar

Surender Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Another

Ashok Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others

Mukta Vs State of Haryana and Others