Dismissed

Ram Avtar v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Jul 2024CWP/15114/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a stay of departmental enquiry initiated while a corruption case was pending, arguing both arose from the same facts. Relying on Mustaq's case, the Court held that identical facts alone do not justify a stay absent complicated questions of law and fact, and dismissed the petition with liberty to take all pleas before the competent authority.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ram Avtar Vs State of Haryana and Others — Corruption | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

[110] IN THE HIGH COURT OF P UNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIG A RH

¶2

CWP-15114-2024 Date of D ecision : 05.07.2024

¶3

Ram Avt a r …Petitioner

¶4

versus

¶5

State of H aryana and others ….Respondents

¶6

Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

¶7

Present: Mr. Piyush Aggarwal, Advo c ate for the petitioner. Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, H a ryana. ***

¶8

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

¶9

[1] Present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitut i on of India, is for the issuance o f a writ in the nature of manda m us to direct t he respondents to defer/stay the departmental enquiry initiated v ide order dat e d 23.01.2024 (Annexure P-2) , till the pendency of the crim i nal proceedi n gs in case FIR No.2 dated 19. 0 1.2024 (Annexure P-1) regist e red under Se c tion 7 of the PC Act (later on S ection 13(1) B, PC Act was ad d ed) at Police S tation ACB Rohtak.

¶10

[2] Learned counsel for the pe t itioner would not dispute that the matter in issue would be covered by deta i led judgment passed by Coordi n ate Bench in Mustaq Vs. State of Haryana & others , (2024) 3 SLR 214. [3] Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, H aryana, who appears on adva n ce notice on behalf of the respondents bring s to the notice of this Court that t wo intra Co u rt appeals filed against the sam e order also stand dismissed by the

¶11

Division B ench.

¶12

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.09.02 22:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶13

CWP-15 1 14-2024 -2-

¶14

[4] The only ground on which the petitioner seeks writ of mandam u s is that both the departmental i nquiry as well as criminal trial are based up o n the same set of facts. If the inquiry is allowed to proceed, the petitione r is bound to disclose his defen c e 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:-

¶15

“17. From the above sa i d judgments, the following pri ciples/conclusions emerge:-

¶16

1. Departmental proce e dings 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 o f Capt. M. Paul Anthony (su p ra) (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).

¶17

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 such conduct as would merit his removal from service or imposition of lesser p unishment whereas in the crimina l

¶18

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.09.02 22:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CWP-15 1 14-2024

¶20

-3-

¶21

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).

¶22

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-470-2024 (relevant portion of w hich is reproduced in Para 10 o f the present order).

¶23

4. There should be early conclusion of departme n tal proceedings so as to weed out any employee w h ose integrity/character has been put in doubt and to main t ain discipline in service and efficiency of public service and also in case the emp l oyee is not guilty of any wrong do i ng, then his honour is re q uired to be vindicated at the earl i est. [Specific reference in this regard can be made to the judgment in the c a se Dr.Balwinder Kumar Shar m a's (supra) (relevant po r tion of which is reproduced in Pa r a

¶24

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.09.02 22:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

CWP-15 1 14-2024

¶26

-4-

¶27

14 of the present o rder) and Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra) (relevant po r tion of which is reproduced in Pa r a 5 of the present order) .

¶28

5. All the ingredients i.e., the departmental proceedings a nd the criminal case be i ng based on identical and simila r set of facts, charge in the criminal case being of grave na t ure involving complicat e d 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 i n this regard can be made to the c ase of Capt. M. Paul An t hony (supra); Indian Overseas B a nk, Anna Salai and Anr (supra) (relevant portion of whic h is reproduced in Para 6 of the present order); State Ban k of India and Ors. (s up ra) (relevant portion of whic h is reproduced in Para 8 of the present order).

¶29

6. Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is g r ave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that ca s e, will depend upon the natur e of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the ba s is of evidence and material colle c ted against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge sheet. [Spe c ific reference can be made to the judgment of Capt. M . Paul Anthony (supra)]. Even the question as to whe t her the case involves identical a nd similar set of facts w ould also have to be considered af ter taking into consider a tion the FIR, the report under Sec t ion 173 Cr.P.C. and th e charges framed. [Reference in this regard can be mad e to the judgment of Paramjit Kaur's (supra)] (relevant p o rtion of which is reproduced in P ara 16 of the present ord e r).

¶30

7. The fact that the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are ba s ed on identical and similar set of

¶31

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.09.02 22:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

CWP-15 1 14-2024 -5-

¶33

facts and the char g es in the criminal case against the delinquent employe e are of grave nature which inv o lve complicated questio n s of law and facts also canno t be considered in isolation to stay the departme n tal proceedings and due regard must be given to the fact t hat the departmental p roceedings 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 reproduced in Para 8 of the present order)

¶34

8. Before granting st ay 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 Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors (supra) (rele v ant portion of which is reproduced in Para 7 of the pre s ent order).

¶35

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 proceedings can be resumed and proceeded with so as to concl u de them at an early date. (Spe c ific 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 reproduced in Para 5 of the present order).

¶36

[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 fac t s. However, that itself is not su f ficient to stay departmental

¶37

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.09.02 22:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶38

CWP-15 1 14-2024 -6-

¶39

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.

¶40

[6] Thus in view of the aforesaid 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.

¶41

[7] Resultantly, the writ petition is ordered to be dismissed. [8] However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to take all pleas before the c o mpetent authority at an approp r iate stage.

¶42

(PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE

¶43

05.07.20 2 4

¶44

‘R. Sharma'

¶45

Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶46

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.09.02 22:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Ram Avtar v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ram Avtar v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.P.O. Beant Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Arun Vs State of Punjab

Harkesh Vs State of Haryana

Mahabir Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others

Abhishek @ Harshit Vs State of Haryana

Baljinder Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others