Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ac Balbir Singh Sidhu @ B.S. Sidhu vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 January, 2014
Author: Harish Tandon
Bench: Harish Tandon
1
Court 29.01.2014 W.P. 386 (W) of 2014
No.
22
Sl 14
Ac Balbir Singh Sidhu @ B.S. Sidhu
-vs-
Union of India & Ors
Ms. Debjani Sengupta
Mr. Abhra Mukherjee ... For Petitioner
Mr. Rajiv Lall ... For Respondents
The petitioner has approached this Court for revocation and/or cancellation and/or withdrawal of the Memorandum of Charge Sheet dated 29th November 2013, issued by the Deputy Inspector General (CR & Vigilance), Central Reserve Police Force on the ground that on the self same charges, a criminal proceedings is also initiated and his pending.
The facts, involved in this writ petition, relate to illegal gratification received in recruitment process amounting to misconduct. The Memorandum of Charge, annexed to this writ petition, reveals the Article of Charges, relating to imputation of the misconduct or misbehaviour. The witnesses to be examined are also jotted down in Annexure-IV to the said Memorandum of Charge sheet, appearing at page 76 of the writ petition. The First Information Report reveals the list of the persons who are to be examined in a criminal proceedings.
The petitioner tried to impress upon the Court that since the criminal proceedings as well as the departmental proceedings are on the same set of facts, if any disclosure is to be made in the departmental proceedings, it may be counter-productive in the criminal proceedings. In other words, it is tried to be contended that the defence, which the petitioner would disclose in the departmental proceedings, may be used against him 2 in the criminal proceedings.
To support the above contention, reliance is placed upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony -vs- Bharat Gold Mines Limited And Another, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679, wherein it is held that if the departmental proceedings and the criminal proceedings are based on the same set of facts, same witnesses and same evidences are required to be recorded, then, in that event, departmental proceedings can be stayed till disposal of the criminal proceedings. The relevant observation may aptly be quoted hereunder:
"34. There is yet another reason for discarding the whole of the case of the respondents. As pointed out earlier, the criminal case as also the departmental proceedings were based on identical set of facts, namely, "the raid conducted at the appellant's residence and recovery of incriminating articles therefrom". The findings recorded by the enquiry officer, a copy of which has been placed before us, indicate that the charges framed against the appellant were sought to be proved by police officers and panch witnesses, who had raided the house of the appellant and had effected recovery. They were the only witnesses examined by the enquiry officer and the enquiry officer, relying upon their statements, came to the conclusion that the charges were established against the appellant. The same witnesses were examined in the criminal case but the Court, on a consideration of the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that no search was conducted nor was any recovery made from the residence of the appellant. The whole case of the prosecution was thrown out and the appellant was acquitted. In this situation, therefore, the appellant is acquitted by a judicial pronouncement with the finding that the "raid and recovery' at the residence of the appellant were not proved, it would be unjust, unfair 3 and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded at the ex parte departmental proceedings to stand.
35. Since the facts and the evidence in both the proceedings, namely, the departmental proceedings and the criminal case were the same without there being any iota of difference, the distinction, which is usually drawn as between the departmental proceedings and the criminal case on the basis of approach and burden of proof, would not be applicable to the instant case."
Reliance is further placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in M.A.T. 399 of 2009 wherein the Division Bench applied the ratio laid down in case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra), and passed an interim order of stay of the departmental proceedings till conclusion of the criminal case.
There is no quarrel to the proposition of law, as laid down in the aforesaid reports, that in the event both the criminal as well as the departmental proceedings are based upon the same set of facts wherein the same witnesses and evidence are required to be recorded, the departmental proceedings should wait till final disposal of criminal proceedings.
The judgment is to be read in relation to the facts of the case in which the same is delivered. The facts cannot be divorced from ultimate findings as each case is decided on the basis of the particular facts involved therein. Had it been a case that both the criminal and the departmental proceedings are based upon the same set of facts and the same witnesses and the evidence are required to be produced, there is no hesitation to pass an interim order staying further proceedings of the departmental proceedings until conclusion of the criminal proceedings.
As factually indicated above, the witnesses disclosed in the respective documents are different. The 4 matter is at the enquiry stage and, therefore, this Court does not find that both the criminal proceedings as well as the departmental proceedings are based upon the same set of witnesses and the evidences.
This Court, therefore, does not find that the petitioner has been able to make out any prima facie case for an interim order. The prayer for interim order is, therefore, refused.
Respondent authorities are directed to file affidavit-in-opposition within four weeks from date and reply, if any, be field within a week thereafter.
Let this matter appear after five weeks for hearing.
Let downloaded copy of this order, counter- signed by the Registrar (Listing), be handed over to the respective parties on usual undertaking.
(Harish Tandon, J.)