Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shiv Kumar Dwivedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 February, 2022
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 25th OF FEBRUARY, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 27136 of 2021
Between:-
1. SHIV KUMAR DWIVEDI S/O SHANKARSHAN
PRASAD DWIVEDI , AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BRANCH MANAGER JILA
SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANK BARHI DISTT.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. BABUJI SEN S/O SULLU SEN , AGED ABOUT 54
YEAR S , OCCUPATION: SALESMAN GOVT. FAIR
PRICE SHOP KANTI (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. RAJENDRA PRASAD RAI S/O JAGDISH PRASAD
RAI , AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
SALESMAN GOVT. FAIR PRICE SHOP KANTI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. PURSHOTTAM KUMAR DUBEY S/O
SHANKARSHAN PRASAD DWIVEDI , AGED ABOUT
54 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SALESMAN GOVT. FAIR
PRICE SHOP JARARORA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. RADHESHYAM SONI S/O VASHGOPAL SONI , AGED
ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SALES GOVT.
FAIR PRICE SHOPSALAIYA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MANOJ CHOUBEY, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES
AND CONSUMER PROTECTION VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COM M IS S ION ER /D IR ECTOR FOOD, CIVIL
SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
DEPARTMENT VINDHYACHAL BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER COLLECTOR FOOD
DEPTT. DISTT. JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CO-OPERATION
DEPARTMENT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. COLLECTOR K AT N I DISTT. KATNI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
Signature
SAN Not 6. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR K A T N I KATNI
Verified (MADHYA PRADESH)
Digitally signed by
VAIBHAV
YEOLEKAR .....RESPONDENTS
Date: 2022.02.28
18:28:49 IST
2
(BY SHRI PRAVEEN NAMDEO, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission and interim relief this day, the court
passed the following:
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking quashing of order dated 24.11.2021 (Annexure P-17) whereby Assistant Commissioner Cooperative Department, District Katni has imposed certain recoveries on the delinquent employees of the fair price shops and has also directed for registration of FIR besides undertaking disciplinary action under service jurisprudence.
Petitioner is also aggrieved of order dated 01.09.2021 passed by the Principal Secretary, Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, Bhopal directing the Collector, Katni to lodge FIR against the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in identical matters Coordinate Bench as an interim measure directed not to take further coercive action against the petitioners.
Learned Government Advocate in his turn submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order inasmuch as disciplinary proceedings are distinct and different from criminal proceedings. It is further submitted that once it has come on record that some cognizable offence was committed by the petitioners, then two proceedings will operate in different fields.
Learned Government Advocate supports the action.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is evident that the Supreme Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony versus Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1416 has summed up that both departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings can run as parallel proceedings and both can proceed simultaneously though separately. It has further held that if, however, both are based on identical or similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, the departmental proceedings should be stayed till the conclusion of the criminal case. It is also held that even if the departmental proceedings are stayed, they should be resumed even if the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed.
Similarly, in case of Kusheshwar Dubey Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors, AIR 1988 SC 2118 , it is held that there could be no legal bar for 3 simultaneous proceedings being taken.
Orissa High Court in case of Bhimsen Gochhayat Vs. Regional Manager, Bank of India, 1995(71) FLR 915 has held that there is a cardinal difference between a criminal proceeding and a disciplinary proceeding. The dominant purpose of a criminal proceeding is to achieve the protection of the society at large, and the public, while that of the disciplinary proceeding is purity and efficiency of public service. It is further held that the fields of operation of the two proceedings are quite different and independent.
Thus, in view of said legal pronouncements of the Supreme Court and the High Court, since law is settled that the purpose of a criminal proceeding is different from that of the disciplinary proceeding, and both can proceed simultaneously though separately, there appears to be no impediment in executing the impugned order dated 24.11.2021 and the reminder as contained in communication dated 01.09.2021, facts which have not been brought to the notice of Coordinate Bench and therefore, interim order being distinguishable on its own facts, is not binding, therefore, petition fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE vy