Petitioner sought stay of departmental inquiry pending criminal trial. Court relied on Mustaq's case and principles from Capt. M. Paul Anthony, holding that identical facts do not automatically warrant a stay. Since no complicated questions of law/fact were pleaded, the writ was dismissed.
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.
[210] IN THE HIGH COURT OF P UNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIG A RH
CWP-10691-2021 Date of D ecision : 01.07.2024
Sukhwin d er Singh …Petitioner versus State of P unjab and others ….Respondents
Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present: Mr. Aminder Singh, Advoca t e for the petitioner.
Mr. Arun Gupta, DAG, Punj a b.
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)
[1] Present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitut i on of India for issuance of a w rit, order or direction especiall y in the natur e of a writ of mandamus to dir e ct respondent No.3 not to proceed with dep a rtmental enquiry.
[2] Learned counsel for the p e titioner does not dispute that the matter in issue would be covered by deta i led judgment passed by Coordi n ate Bench in Mustaq versus State of Haryana & others , (2024) 3 SLR 214.
[3] Mr. Arun Gupta, Deput y Advocate General appears on behalf o f the respondents and brings t o the notice of this Court that the judgment passed by Coordinate Benc h in Mustqa’s case (supra) sta n ds upheld in two different intra court appeal s .
[4] In the present case, petit i oner has approached this C o urt RAJNEESH SHARMA seeking w rit in the nature of mandamus d i recting respondent No.3 to kee p 2024.08.28 03:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP-10 6 91-2021 -2-
departme n tal inquiry in abeyance till the completion of trial. The petiti o ner stands bo o ked in FIR No.64 dated 13.12. 2 020, Police Station GRP, Amri t sar for offen c es punishable under Sections 4 0 9 and 120-B of IPC and Sectio n 59 of the N D PS Act, 1985. The allegation a g ainst the petitioner relates to c o m- mission o f offence while dealing wit h case property under NDPS A ct collected from judicial malkana, A mritsar. Vide order Anne x ure P-3, pet i tioner has been served memo of charges by Superintenden t of Police O perations, G.R.P. Ludhiana. [5] The only ground on which t he petitioner seeks writ of ma n damus is th a t both the departmental inquir y as well as criminal trial are b a sed upon the s ame set of facts. If the inquiry i s allowed to proceed, the petitioner is bound to disclose his defence which will gravely prejudice his rights in t he criminal trial. The precise is s ue was dealt with by a Coordi n ate Bench in detail in CWP No.5111 of 2024, titled as Mustaq vs. State of Haryana and others, 2024 (3) SLR 214 . After discussing a serie s of binding p recedents including Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., 1999 (3) SCC 679 , Indian Overseas Bank, Anna Salai vs. P. Ganesan 2008 (1) SCC 650 , this Court h e ld as under:-
1. Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a crim i nal case can proceed si m ultaneously as there is no bar in t h eir being conducted simultaneously though separa t ely. (Specific reference in this regard can be made to the judgment in case of C apt. M. Paul Anthony (supra)
RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.08.28 03:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP-10 6 91-2021
-3-
(relevant portion of w hich is reproduced in Para 5 o f the present order) and S tate Bank of India and Ors. (su p ra) (relevant portion of w hich is reproduced in Para 8 o f the present order).
2. The approach and o bjective in the criminal proceed i ngs and the disciplinary p roceedings is altogether distinct a nd different inasmuch as in the disciplinary proceedings, the question is as to w h ether the employee is guilty of s uch conduct as would m erit his removal from service or imposition of lesser punishment whereas in the crim i nal proceedings, the qu e stion is as to whether the offe n ces registered against h i m are established and if establis h ed, what sentence is t o be imposed upon him. (Spe c ific reference in this re g ard can be made to the judgment in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors (supra) (rele v ant portion of which is reproduced in Para 7 of the pre s ent order) and to Sh a shi Bhusan Prasad vs. Inspe c tor General, Central I n dustrial Security Force and others, reported as 2019(7 ) SCC 797 and also LPA-470-2024 (relevant portion of w hich is reproduced in Para 10 o f the present order).
3. The mode of the en q uiry, the rules governing the enq u iry and trial as well a s the standard of proof in crim i nal proceedings and in d epartmental proceedings are distinct and different and i n a criminal case, charge has t o be established beyond reasonable doubt whereas in the departmental proce e dings, the charge of misconduct has to be established o n the principle of “preponderanc e of probabilities”. (Spe c ific reference in this regard ca n be made to the judgm e nt of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in “State of Karnataka and others vs. Ume s h”, reported as 2022 S C C Online SC 345 and LPA-470-2 0 24
RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.08.28 03:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP-10 6 91-2021
-4-
(relevant portion of which is reproduced in Para 10 o f the
present order).
4. There should be early conclusion of departme n tal proceedings so as to weed out any employee w h ose integrity/character h as been put in doubt and to main t ain discipline in servic e and efficiency of public service a nd also in case the e m ployee is not guilty of any wr o ng doing, then his hon o ur is required to be vindicated at the earliest. [Specific r ef erence in this regard can be mad e to the judgment in the case Dr.Balwinder Kumar Shar m a’s (supra) (relevant p o rtion of which is reproduced in P ara 14 of the present order) and Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra) (relevant p o rtion of which is reproduced in P ara 5 of the present ord e r).
5. All the ingredients i .e., the departmental proceedings a nd the criminal case b e ing based on identical and simila r set of facts, charge in t h e criminal case being of grave na t ure involving complica t ed questions of law and facts are required to be met before the Court could consider the case of the employ e e for grant of stay of departme n tal proceedings during the pendency of the criminal c a se. (Specific reference in this regard can be made to the c ase of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra); Indian Overseas B a nk, Anna Salai and An r (supra) (relevant portion of whic h is reproduced in Para 6 of the present order); State Ban k of India and Ors. (s u pra) (relevant portion of whic h is reproduced in Para 8 of the present order).
6. Whether the natur e of a charge in a criminal cas e is grave and whether c omplicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the natur e of offence, the natur e of the case launched against the employee on the ba s is of evidence and material colle c ted against him during i nvestigation or as reflected in the
RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.08.28 03:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP-10 6 91-2021
-5-
charge sheet. [Spe c ific reference can be made to the judgment of Capt. M . Paul Anthony (supra)]. Even the question as to whether the case involves identical a nd similar set of facts w ould also have to be considered af ter taking into consid e ration the FIR, the report u n der Section 173 Cr.P.C . and the charges framed. [Refer e nce in this regard can b e made to the judgment of Para m jit Kaur’s (supra)] (re l evant portion of which is reprod u ced in Para 16 of the pr e sent order)
7. The fact that the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are b ased on identical and similar set of facts and the char g es in the criminal case against the delinquent employe e are of grave nature which inv o lve complicated questi o ns of law and facts also canno t be considered in is o lation to stay the departme n tal proceedings and du e regard must be given to the fact t hat the departmental p r oceedings cannot be unduly dela y ed. [Specific reference i n this regard can be made to the c ase of Capt. M. Paul A nthony (supra) (relevant portio n of which is reproduce d in para 5 of the present order) a nd State Bank of India a nd Ors. (supra).] (relevant portio n of which is reproduce d in Para 8 of the present order)
8. Before granting st a y of the departmental proceedi n gs, special facts of the case are required to be mentio n ed, warranting stay of departmental proceedings. (Spe c ific reference in this re g ard can be made to the judgment of Kendriya Vidyalay a Sangathan & Ors (supra) (rele v ant portion of which is reproduced in Para 7 of the pre s ent order).
9. In case all the abo v e parameters are met and the sta y of the departmental pr o ceedings has been granted, then a lso in case, the crimin a l case is being unduly delayed, the departmental proce e dings can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclu d e them at an early date. (Specific
RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.08.28 03:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP-10 6 91-2021 -6-
reference in this re g ard can be made to the judgment of Capt. M. Paul Anth o ny’s case (supra) (relevant portio n of which is reproduce d in Para 5 of the present order). ”
[5] Evidently in the present cas e , the departmental inquiry as w ell as the cri m inal case registered against th e petitioner are based upon the s a me set of facts. However, that itself is n o t sufficient to stay departme n tal proceedi n gs. The issue is whether any c o mplicated question of law and f act is involv e d in the case or not, the writ pe t ition is totally silent about the s aid aspect.
[6] Thus in view of the aforesa i d facts, this Court finds that in the absence o f any pleading with respect t o involvement of any complic a ted question o f law and facts in the present c a se, it will be fully covered by r a tio of law lai d down in Mustaq’s case (supra) against the petitioner. This C o urt does not f ind any reason to stay departme n tal proceedings.
[7] Resultantly, the writ petition is ordered to be dismissed. [8] However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to take all p l eas before th e competent authority at an appr o priate stage.
(PANKAJ JAIN)
JUDGE
01.07.20 2 4 ‘R. Sharma’
Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No
RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.08.28 03:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether simultaneous departmental inquiry and criminal trial can be stayed on the ground that they arise from the same set of facts?
Whether the petitioner established complicated questions of law and fact warranting a stay of departmental proceedings?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mustaq vs State of HaryanaRelied on¶10
Mustaq versus State of Haryana & others , (2024) 3 SLR 214
Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.Referred¶14
Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., 1999 (3) SCC 679 · Who else cites this
Indian Overseas Bank vs P. GanesanReferred¶14
Indian Overseas Bank, Anna Salai vs. P. Ganesan 2008 (1) SCC 650 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sukhwinder Singh
State of Punjab
Pankaj Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
