Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rakesh Chandel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 May, 2022
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
ON THE 13th OF MAY, 2022
WRIT APPEAL No. 493 OF 2022
Between:-
RAKESH CHANDEL, SON OF LATE SHRI
SANTOSH CHANDEL, AGED ABOUT 33
YEARS, WORKING AS PANCHAYAT
SECRETARY (PRESENTLY UNDER
SUSPENSION), GRAM PANCHAYAT BOHNA
KHAIRI, JANPAD PANCHAYAT
CHHINDWARA, DISTRICT CHHINDWARA
(M.P.)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI ANSHUL TIWARI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH,
THROUGH: THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
PANCHAYAT AND GRAMIN DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT, VALLABH BHAWAN,
BHOPAL (M.P.)
2. THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYT RAJ, 60A,
ARERA HILLS, DISTRICT BHOPAL.
3. THE COLLECTOR, DISTRICT
CHHINDWARA, (M.P.)
2
4. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILA
PANCHAYAT, CHHINDWARA, DISTRICT
CHHINDWARA (M.P.)
5. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, JANPAD
PANCHAYAT CHHINDWARA, DISTRICT
CHHINDWARA (M.P.)
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RITWIK PARASHAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, passed the following:
ORDER
The instant writ appeal takes exception to order dated 25.04.2022 (Annexure-A-1) passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.9311 of 2022, whereby, the petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed on the post of Panchayat Secretary in the year 2007. When the appellant was working on the post of Panchayat Secretary, an FIR No.573 of 2021 dated 28.08.2021 has been registered against him at Police Station Chourai District Chhindwara for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 469, 471 and 120-B of IPC. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the appellant before the Court of competent jurisdiction and the trial is pending against him. During pendency of the criminal trial, the respondent No.5 issued charge sheet against the appellant for alleged misconduct under Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.
3. The appellant challenged the charge sheet before the learned Single Judge on the ground that during the pendency of criminal trial, the 3 departmental inquiry would prejudice his case and, therefore, till disposal of the criminal trial, the departmental charge sheet should be stayed. The learned Single Judge did not find any substance in the writ petition and, therefore, the same has been dismissed. The appellant being aggrieved by the order of passed by the learned Single Judge is in the instant intra court appeal.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another.1 the departmental inquiry and criminal case cannot go on simultaneously on the basis of identical and similar set of facts. According to him, the learned Single Judge has erred in not appreciating the legal position in right perspective hence, the interference is called for.
5. Learned Government Advocate opposed the prayer and he submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/S Stanzen Toyotetsu India P. Ltd vs Girish V & Ors2 has clearly held that there is no bar for both the proceedings go on simultaneously unless there are complicated questions of law and facts involved in the case, there should not be any interference into the same.
6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.
7. The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the pronouncement of the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Sheshdhar Badgaiya vs. State of M.P. and others3 and has held that there is no legal bar for both the proceedings to go on simultaneously.
1 1999 (3) SCC 679 2 2014 (3) SCC 636 3 WA No.1259 of 2021 order dated 07.1.2022. 4
8. We have perused the FIR and the charge sheet issued against the appellant. The FIR relates to alleged withdrawal of fund against 23 dead beneficiaries. The charge sheet relates to alleged misconduct of illegal issuance of certificate for 23 beneficiaries. A perusal of FIR, do not same suggest that complicated questions of law and facts are involved. The allegation in criminal cases and departmental charge sheet are not such that both the proceedings cannot go on simultaneously. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/S Stanzen Toyotetsu India P. Ltd2 has held that there is no bar in conducting the disciplinary proceedings and criminal trial simultaneously. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant in the matter of Food Corporation of India vs. Harish Prakash Hinunia4 is concerned, the same has been passed under the facts and circumstances of that case. The legal position propounded therein is not disputed.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere into the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the writ appeal is dismissed.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
pb
4 WA No.158 of 2022 order dated 08.03.2022.
Digitally signed by PRASHANT BAGJILEWALE
Date: 2022.06.15 11:42:27 +05'30'