Chattisgarh High Court
Ravindra Aware vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 14 March, 2019
Author: P. Sam Koshy
Bench: P. Sam Koshy
-1-
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 1813 of 2019
Ravindra Aware S/o Shri Vishnuji Aware Aged About 38 Years R/o
Sadar Police Line, Police Quarter, Raipur, Police Station City
Kotwali, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home/
Police, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Police Station And Post
Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. Director General Of Police (DGP) Police Head Quarter (PHQ) , Near,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Police Station And Post Rakhi, Atal
Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Inspector General Of Police (IGP) Office Of Inspector General Of
Police (IGP) Shanker Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
4. Superintendent Of Police (SP) Office Of Superintendent Of Police
(SP), Gandhi Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
5. City Superintendent Of Police (CSP) Office Of City Superintendent
Of Police (CSP), Azad Chowk Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
---Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate For State : Mr. Sameer Behar, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 14/03/2019
1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally and disposed of at the motion stage itself.
2. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the initiation of the charge-sheet and holding of a departmental enquiry against the petitioner. The charge-sheet has been issued on 30.08.2017 -2- (Annexure P/5). The charge-sheet has been issued on two grounds, which for ready reference is reproduced herein under:
"1- fnukad 28-08-2016 dks 02 fnol Lohd` r 'kq n k vodk'k ij jokuk gksd j fcuk fdlh lwp uk ds vukf/kd` r :i ls vuq i fLFkr jgdj drZ O ; ds iz f r ?kksj ykijokgh] LosP Nkpkfjrk ,oa vuq ' kklghurk dks iz n f'kZ r dj iq f yl jsX ;q y s' ku dh iS j k 64¼2½ ,oa 64¼4½ ds foijhr d` R ; djukA 2- iq f yl foHkkx esa vkj{kd ds in ij inLFk jgrs gq , foHkkx ,oa vketu ds e/; vuS f rd vkpj.k ,oa dnkpkj iz n f'kZ r dj iq f yl foHkkx dh Nfo /kwf ey djukA "
3. It would be relevant at this juncture to mention that an F.I.R. also was lodged against the petitioner on 26.11.2016. The case has been registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 420/34 of Indian Penal Code in Crime No. 146/2016, registered at Police Station Aanda, District Durg. The allegations against the petitioner in the F.I.R. is that the petitioner on the pretext of providing employment in the government had collected huge amount of money.
4. The plain reading of the charge No.2 in the charge-sheet dated 30.08.2017 and the allegations leveled against the petitioner in the F.I.R. would make it clear that the allegation seems to be one and the same.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the criminal case now is fixed for recording of the evidence on behalf of the prosecution. At the same time, the counsel for the petitioner submits that though the charge-sheet was issued by the Department as early as on 30.08.2017, but though more than 1½ years has crossed, till date not a single proceeding has been drawn by the Inquiry Officer and there has been a change in the Inquiry Officer on three earlier -3- occasions on account of either transferred or retirement of the earlier Inquiry Officers, who were appointed.
6. At this juncture, the counsel for the petitioner submits that, in case if the Inquiry Officer now proceeds further with the departmental enquiry and the petitioner is made to lead evidence, that could be detrimental to the interest of the petitioner in the criminal case that is pending before the criminal Court, and thus prayed that the departmental enquiry proceedings may be kept in abeyance/stayed, till the criminal case is finally decided.
7. The State counsel on the other hand opposing the petition submits that, since the standard of proof required for proving the case in the criminal case is entirely different and that the standard of proof required in deciding the departmental charges, the need for staying of the departmental enquiry is not necessary at all.
8. According to the counsel for the respondents, in the departmental enquiry, it is the doctrine of preponderance of probabilities, which would apply and in the criminal case, it would be required by the prosecution to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts and thus prayed for rejection of the writ petition.
9. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of record, it would be relevant at this juncture to refer to a recent decision rendered by this Court in the case of "Sandip Kumar Singh v. Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank & Ors." (WPS No. 2377/2018) decided on 27.03.2018, wherein this Court relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State -4- Bank of India & others v. Neelam Nag & another" (2016) 9 SCC 491 and also "Karnataka SRTC v. M.G. Vittal Rao" (2012) 1 SCC 442 allowed a writ petition of similar nature and ordered that the departmental enquiry/ proceedings should be kept in abeyance till the finalization of the criminal case or else the petitioner's right to defence would get adversely prejudice.
10. It would be relevant at this juncture to refer to the order passed in the case of "Sandip Kumar Singh" (supra), wherein in paragraph No.9, this Court held as under:-
"9. Likewise, if we peruse the decision rendered in Neelam Nag (Supra), it would reveal that the Supreme Court in the said case also initially had taken note of the fact that charges which have been levelled against the petitioner in the criminal case and also in the disciplinary proceeding, if not identical, almost are on similar set of facts and witnesses also relied upon before the two forums being similar, the disciplinary action against the petitioner was stalled for a period of one year. The period of one year was perhaps for the reason that the proceedings before the criminal court was going on since long, whereas, in the instant case the departmental proceedings have been initiated recently. Therefore, at this juncture, it would be in the interest of justice that the departmental proceedings against the petitioner be stalled till the criminal case is finally concluded and thereafter the respondents would be at liberty to proceed further from the stage the inquiry proceedings are fixed as on date."
11. The aforesaid view of this Court stands fortified from the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "M.G. Vittal Rao" (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs No. 16-17 has held as under:-
-5-
"(i) There is no legal bar for both the proceedings to go on simultaneously.
(ii) The only valid ground for claiming that the disciplinary proceedings may be stated would be to ensure that the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced. But even such grounds would be available only in cases involving complex questions of facts or law.
(iii) Such defence ought not to be permitted to unnecessarily delay the departmental proceedings. The interest of the delinquent officer as well as the employer clearly lies in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.
(iv) Departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously to the criminal trial, except where both the proceedings are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common."
12. Subsequently, the same view was further reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. v. Girish V." (2014) 3 SCC 636, wherein in paragraph No.16, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"16. Suffice it to say that while there is no legal bar to the holding of the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal trial simultaneously, stay of disciplinary proceedings may be an advisable course in cases where the criminal charge against the employee is grave and continuance of the disciplinary proceedings is likely to prejudice their defence before the criminal Court. Gravity of the charge is, however, not by itself enough to determine the question unless the charge involves complicated question of law and fact."
13. The view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid two decisions stands further reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State Bank of India & others v. Neelam Nag & another" (2016) 9 SCC 491.
-6-
14. In view of the same, this Court is of the firm view that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly taking note of the fact that in the criminal, the evidence has already started and in the departmental enquiry, till date no evidence has been recorded, though the charge sheet was issued more than 1½ years ago, ends of justice would serve if the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner is kept in abeyance till the finalization of the criminal case.
15. It is made clear that on the culmination of the criminal case, the respondents would be at liberty to proceed further with the departmental enquiry and conclude the same, irrespective whether the petitioner has superannuated or not?
16. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition accordingly stands allowed and disposed off.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved