Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Rajdeep Singh vs Chandigarh Police, Ut on 19 May, 2022
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Hearing by Video Conferencing
O.A. No.060/00126/2022 Order pronounced on:19.05.2022
(Order reserved on: 23.03.2022
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR MONGA, MEMBER (J)
(On Video Conference from Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh).
HON'BLE MR. RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER (A)
(On Video Conference from Central Administrative Tribunal,
Bangalore Bench, Bangalore)
Rajdeep Singh
S/o Amarjit Singh,
age 45 years
r/o H.No. 2185,
Sector 19-C,
Chandigarh
(Group-B).
(By: SH. SANJAY KAUSHAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE
WITH SH. ARJUN SUKLA, ADVOCATE)
.. Applicant
Versus
1. Chandigarh Administration through its Director
General of Police, Chandigarh.
2. Deputy Superintendent of Police, SDPO/N/East-cum-
Enquiry Officer, UT Chandigarh.
(By: SHRI ARVIND MOUDGIL, ADVOCATE)
Respondents
2
ORDER
Per: SURESH KUMAR MONGA, MEMBER (J)
1. Pleaded case of the applicant herein is that an FIR No.0063 dated 02.03.2021 under Sections 452, 331, 344, 365, 386, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 473, 474, 477 and 120-B IPC was registered at Police Station, Sector 39, Chandigarh, against Sanjeev Mahajan, Khalendra Singh Kadyan, Arvind Singla, Ashok Arora, Saurabh Gupta, Satpal Dagar, Surjit Singh, Shekhar and Daljit Singh alias Rubbal. The allegation levelled against accused persons was that they tried to grab a property of one Rahul Mehta by taking undue advantage of his mental condition. In furtherance of a conspiracy by faking certain documents and by impersonating Rahul Mehta, they got registered a sale deed with regard to House No. 340, Sector 37-A, Chandigarh in the name of Saurabh Gupta.
2. It has been further averred by the applicant that he was not named in the FIR. However, accused Sanjeev Mahajan made a statement that applicant the then SHO, Police Station, Sector 39, Chandigarh, had received illegal gratification to the tune of Rs.5 Lacs from him in the Police Station itself in the presence of 3 accused Daljit Singh @ Rubal for helping accused persons in usurping the property in question and that one Amit Gupta was tortured by him in the presence of Sanjeev Mahajan and Surjit Singh. Thus, the name of the applicant herein was also included in the list of accused persons in the FIR vide sanction order dated 8.7.2021. The applicant was arrested and lodged in Model Jail, Chandigarh.
3. It is further submitted that as a result of being named as an accused in the aforesaid FIR, the applicant was placed under suspension. Subsequently, on the same set of allegations, as in the criminal case, a regular departmental enquiry under Rule 16.24 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 was ordered against him. He was served with a summary of allegations dated 10.1.2022 (Annexure A-4) on the allegation that one Shri Amit Gupta was brutally tortured by him during an enquiry of a missing case in presence of accused Sanjeev Mahajan and Surjit Singh, which tantamounts to grave misconduct as he was Supervisory Officer of the Police Station.
4. The applicant submitted a representation dated 10.1.2022 that being in jail, he would not be in a 4 position to properly defend himself in the departmental enquiry at this stage and as such the enquiry may be adjourned sine die till conclusion of the trial in criminal case. This was followed by another representation of even date with a request to allow him the assistance of an Advocate and to keep enquiry proceedings pending till conclusion of the trial in the criminal prosecution pending on same set of facts and allegations but to no avail. The case of the applicant in short is that if he is forced to disclose his defence in departmental enquiry case at this stage, it would prejudice his defence in criminal case and as such departmental proceedings are required to be stayed.
5. With all these assertions, the applicant has invoked the jurisdiction of this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, with a further prayer for issuance of a direction to respondents to stay the departmental proceedings till the criminal trial is concluded.
6. The respondents No.1&2, while filing their joint short written statement have joined the defence and opposed the prayer made in the Original Application.
57. It has been stated that assistance of an Advocate in departmental case can be allowed only in case Presenting Officer is an Advocate. The applicant has not mentioned as to how he would be prejudiced on account of holding of departmental enquiry in Model Jail, Burail and mere statement that no free and fair enquiry is possible in jail would not suffice.
8. It has further been submitted that a regular departmental enquiry was ordered vide order dated 9.4.2021 in FIR No. 63 dated 2.3.2021 by office of SSP, Union Territory, Chandigarh. The applicant is one of the main accused in the said case and challan has been presented on 30.4.2021. There are 13 witnesses out of which 5 have been examined till date and 5 witnesses have been summoned for 4.3.2022 and remaining 2 witnesses are yet to be summoned and examined.
9. It has been stated that applicant was in judicial custody since 12.3.2021 in the aforesaid FIR case, when an application dated 13.9.2021 was submitted in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh for permission to hold departmental enquiry in Burail Jail, Chandigarh. The said application was decided on 26.11.2021 vide which Court allowed 6 holding of regular departmental enquiry against the applicant in jail premises. Thus, the charge sheet was supplied to applicant in Jail premises on 10.1.2022.
10. The respondents further submitted that one more departmental enquiry has been ordered against the applicant vide order dated 16.12.2021 in FIR No. 63 dated 2.3.2021 which pertains to applicant acquiring permanent residency of Canada without permission and knowledge of the department. The summary of allegations with documents and list of prosecution witnesses were supplied to applicant in both the cases.
Both the departmental enquiries are being held against him in accordance with the relevant rules. The departmental enquiry can be held during the pendency of criminal trial as the quantum of proof in criminal trial and departmental proceeding is different. On account of holding of departmental proceedings in Jail, no prejudice would be caused to the applicant. If the applicant has any grievance about any procedure or non-adherence of law, then he can move appropriate application before the enquiry officer and the Original application is, therefore, pre-mature. Both the representations filed by the applicant are under 7 consideration of the respective authorities. The applicant is facing serious charges in FIRs and enquiries are being held strictly as per rules.
11. During pendency of the O.A. both the aforesaid representations of the applicant for stay of enquiry proceedings and engagement of an Advocate to defend him, have been rejected by the respondents vide order dated 7.3.2022 (Annexure R-4).
12. We have heard Shri Sanjay Kaushal, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant and Shri Arvind Moudgil, learned Counsel for the respondents.
13. Shri Sanjay Kaushal, learned Senior Counsel while opening his arguments submitted that the name of the applicant in FIR No.63 dated 2.3.2021 under sections 452, 331, 344, 365, 386, 419, 420,465, 467, 468, 471, 473, 474, 477 and 120-B IPC was included vide sanction order dated 8.7.2021 and simultaneously, disciplinary proceedings have also been initiated vide charge sheet dated 11.1.2022 on the same set of allegations. The applicant's defence will be seriously prejudiced if the inquiry proceedings are not ordered to be kept in abeyance during pendency of the trial before the criminal Court. Learned senior 8 counsel in order to strengthen his arguments, has heavily relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme in the cases of CAPT. M. PAUL ANTHONY VS. BHARAT GOLD MINES LTD. (1999) 3 SCC 679 and M/S STANZEN TOYOTETSU INDIA P. LTD. V. GRISH V. AND OTHERS (2014) 3 SCC 636.
14. Per contra, Shri Arvind Moudgil, leaned Counsel while placing reliance upon a judgment of the Jaipur Bench of this Tribunal in the matter of SAYAR SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER, Original Application No. 291/622/2019 decided on 29.5.2020, submitted that the disciplinary proceedings and the trial before a criminal court can continue simultaneously and there is no bar to continue with the inquiry proceedings during pendency of the trial before the criminal court.
15. Learned counsel further submitted that the judgment rendered by this Tribunal in Sayar Singh (supra) has further been affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan by way of a judgment dated 3.12.2020 rendered in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6249/2020.
916. We have thoughtfully considered the rival contentions of learned counsels for the parties and also perused the records of the case.
17. Indisputably, on a complaint dated 29.12.2020 moved by Pandit Sita Ram Rattan, an enquiry was conducted by Devinder Sharma, Deputy Superintendent of Police who submitted a report on 26.2.2021 and on the basis of the said report, an FIR No. 63 was registered under Sections 452, 331, 344, 365, 386, 419, 420, 163, 107, 468, 471, 473, 474, 477 and 120-B IPC on 2.3.2021 at Police Station, Sector 39, Chandigarh against Sanjeev Mahajan, Khalendra Singh Kadyan, Arvind Singla, Ashok Arora, Saurabh Gupta, Satpal Dagar, Surjit Singh, Shekhar and Daljit Singh alias Rubbal. Initially the applicant was not arrayed as an accused in the FIR case. However, on the basis of a statement of one of the accused persons namely Sanjiv Mahajan, to the effect that the applicant had received illegal gratification to the tune of Rs.5.00 Lacs in the premises of the Police Station itself, his name was included in the list of accused persons.
18. One Amit Gupta was picked up to join the investigation and his statement was recorded. He made 10 a statement that he was brutally tortured by Inspector Rajdeep Singh (applicant herein) the then SHO, Police Station, Sector 39, Chandigarh, during the enquiry of missing case in the presence of accused Sanjeev Mahajan and Surjit Singh. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh, therefore, ordered a regular departmental enquiry against the applicant herein by way of a memo dated 9.4.2021 under Rule 16.24 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, with the allegations that the above act on the part of the applicant tantamounts to a grave misconduct being the then Supervisory Officer of the Police Station, Sector 39, Chandigarh.
19. Pursuant to the aforesaid order issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, SDPO/N/East U.T. Chandigarh, was appointed as an Inquiry Officer. The summary of allegations date 10.01.2022 produced on record as Annexure A-4 reveal that the applicant is facing a charge that he tortured Amit Gupta brutally during enquiry of a missing case in the presence of accused Sanjeev Mahajan and Surjit Singh and the said conduct tantamounts to a grave misconduct being the Supervisory Officer of the Police Station, Sector 39, 11 Chandigarh. The domestic enquiry is, therefore, confined to examining the applicant's conduct as Supervisory Officer of the Police Station whereas in the criminal case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, by way of an order dated 28.1.2022, has framed the following charges :-
"That you accused Sanjeev Mahajan, Shekhar and Surjit Singh @ Bouncer (Since deceased) during first week of January, 2017 and subsequently during different intervals in the area of Police Station, Sector 39, Chandigarh and other areas entered into a criminal conspiracy to usurp the H.No.340, Sector 37, Chandigarh, in the possession of Rahul taking advantage of the weak mental state of Rahul by taking forcible possession of the said house and by procuring the general power of attorney from Rahul to forge and fabricate different documents on the basis of said power of attorney and to create false and fabricated title documents for the said house in order to misappropriate and gain profits from the sale consideration of the said house and for doing so, to commit offences of trespass, hurt by intoxication, grievous hurt to extort property, extortion, abduction, kidnapping, cheating, forgery, using forged documents etc. and thereby you and committed an offence punishable under section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, and within my cognizance.
Secondly, you accused Sanjeev Mahajan, in the month of January, 2017 at Chandigarh, agreed with accused Rajdeep Singh (the then SHO, PS-
39), to disobey direction of law, framing of incorrect record pertaining to daily diary register of PS-39 and misuse of official position, threatening witness Amit Gupta in order to grab H.No. 340, Sector 37, Chandigarh from victim-
Rahul and besides the above said agreement that you did some acts, in pursuance of the said agreement to commit the offence of framing incorrect record, disobeyance of direction of law, criminal intimidation, misuse of official position etc. punishabl with rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards and thereby you accused Sanjeev Mahajan and Rajdeep Singh 12 committed an offence punishable under section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, and within my cognizance.
Thirdly, in the month of April, 2017 at Chandigarh you accused Sanjeev Mahajan agreed with accused Arvind Singla, Satpal Dagar, Khalinder Singh Kadian entered into a criminal conspiracy to sell H.No. 340, Sector 37-A, Chandigarh to Arvind Singla & Khalinder Singh through your co-accused Ashok Arora by procuring General Power of Attorney (GPA) from Rahul Mehta in the name of Arvind Singla & Khalinder Singh Kadian to enable Satpal Dagar, Arvind Singla and Khalinder Singh to sell the aforesaid house on the basis of said GPA and subsequently on coming to know that said house is not registered in name of Rahul Mehta in Estate office to get transferred the aforesaid house in the name of Rahul Mehta in the Estate Office, UT, Chandigarh and to do to commit certain illegal acts in pursuance of the said agreement like cheating, forgery of valuable security, forgery for purpose of cheating, using forged documents as genuine etc. punishable with life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards and thereby you all committed an offence punishable under Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, and within my cognizance.
Fourthly, on 14.01.2017 in the area of PS Sector- 39, Chandigarh subsequently you accused Insp. Rajdeep Singh in pursuance of above said Criminal conspiracy with your co-accused Sanjeev Mahajan and other deliberately omitted to lodge an FIR on the complaint of Pandit Sita Ram Ratan, disclosing the cognizable offence in violation of section 154 Cr. P.C. intending to cause or knowing it likely to cause injury to Victim Rahul Mehta and complainant Pandit Sita Ram Ratan and thereby you accused Rajdeep Singh committed an offence punishable under section 166, Indian Penal Code within my cognizance.
Fifthly, on above said date time and place and subsequently you accused Rajdeep Singh in pursuance of above said criminal conspiracy with Sanjeev Mahajan and others knowingly and having reason to believe that the offence of house tress pass after making preparation for hurt has been committed, caused evidence connected with the said offence i.e. mental health certificate of victim Rahul Mehta submitted by Pandit Sita Ram Ratan alongwith his complaint to disappear with intention 13 to screen the offender from legal punishment, and thereby you accused Insp. Rajdeep Singh committed an offence punishable under section 201, IPC whereas your co-accused Sanjeev Mahajan and others thereby committed an offence Under Section 201 r.w Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance.
Sixthly, on 14.01.2017 and onwards in the area of Police Station 49, Chandigarh in criminal conspiracy with Sanjeev Mahajan and others you accused Insp. Rajdeep Singh and being a public servant having domain over Daily Diary Register pertaining to Police Station-39, Chandigarh, got lodged DDR No.61 dated 14.01.2017 containing false facts and in a manner which you knew to be incorrect and with the knowledge that victim Rahul Mehta cold not give free consent owing to his mental incapacity to induct any tenant knowing it that it is likely to cause loss / injury to Rahul Mehta to save co-accused from legal punishment and with the intention to save them and thereby you accused Insp. Rajdeep Singh thereby committed an offence punishable under section 218, Indian Penal Code, whereas your co-accused Sanjeev Mahajan and others thereby committed an offence under section 218 r.w Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance.
Seventhly, on or before 12.01.2017 and onwards in the area of first floor of House No. 340, Sector37-A, Chandigarh you accused Sanjeev Mahajan, Shekhar (not arrested), Surjit @ Bouncer (deceased) and others in pursuance of the above said criminal conspiracy administered stupefying thing to Rahul Mehta with intent to cause hurt to him to facilitate the commission of the offence of house trespass, extortion, robbery against Rahul Mehta, and thereby you accused Sanjeev Mahajan, Shekhar, Surjit@ Bouncer (deceased) committed an offence punishable under section 328, Indian Penal Code and your co- accused committed an offence under Section 328 r.w Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance.
Eighthly, during the period from 12.01.2017 to June, 2017 in the area of House No. 340, Sector 37-A, Chandigarh and subsequently you accused Sanjeev Mahajan in pursuance of the above said criminal conspiracy with Shekhar (not arrested), Surjit @ Bouncer (deceased) voluntarily caused grievous hurt upon the person of Rahul Mehta to extort his signatures on rent deed, bank account 14 opening form of Catholic Syrian Bank, General Power of Attorney, blank cheques, blank papers, on few pages of booklet of Estate Office, Chandigarh to get transferred ownership rights of H.No.340, Sector 37-A, Chandigarh etc and to earn illegal profits and thereby you accused Sanjeev Mahajan, Shekhar, Surjit @ Bouncer (deceased) committed an offence punishable under section 331, Indian Penal Code and your co- accused committed an offence under Section 331 r.w Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance.
Ninethly, during the period from 12.01.2017 till June, July 2017 at House No. 340, Sector 37-A, Chandigarh in pursuance of the above said criminal conspiracy you accused, Sanjeev Mahajan in conspiracy with Shekhar, Surjit @ Bouncer (deceased) and others wrongfully confined Rahul Mehta for 10 days or more and you thereby committed an offence under Section 344 IPC within my cognizance.
Tenthly, somewhere in the month of June, July 2017 in the above said area you accused Surjit @ Bouncer (since deceased) in pursuance of the above said criminal conspiracy with Sanjeev Mahajan and Shekhar (not arrested) and others kidnapped Rahul Mehta in order to secretly and wrongfully confine Rahul Mehta in order to enable you all to commit different offences to usurp the house in question and thereby you accused Surjit @ Bouncer (deceased) committed an offence punishable under section 365, Indian Penal Code within my cognizance.
Eleventhly, during the period from 12.01.2017 to June, July 2017 in the area of House No. 340, Sector 37-A, Chandigarh, Estate Office, Sub- registrar Office, Sector-17 Catholic Syrian Bank Sector-34, Aadhar Office Village Badheri, Sector 41, Chandigarh you accused Sanjeev Mahajan alongwith Surjit @ Bouncer (deceased), Shekhar (not arrested) and others intentionally put Rahul Mehta in fear of injury to him and thereby dishonestly induced and coerced him to deliver you keys of 1st Floor of H.No.340, Sector 37-A, Chandigarh and to made him sign rent deed; bank account opening form of Catholic Syrian Bank; General Power of Attorney; blank cheques; blank papers; pages of booklet of Estate Office, Chandigarh regarding transfer of ownership rights with respect to H.No.340, Sector 37-A, Chandigarh; etc. and thereby you accused 15 Sanjeev Mahajan, Shekhar, Surjit @ Bouncer (deceased) committed an offence punishable under section 384, Indian Penal Code within my cognizance.
Twelvethly, on abovesaid date time and place and subsequently you accused Sanjeev Mahajan, Surjit @ Bouncer (deceased), Shekhar (not arrested) in pursuance of the above said criminal conspiracy put Rahul Mehta in fear of death/grievous hurt upon his person to commit extortion, and thereby you accused Sanjeev Mahajan, Shekhar, Surjit @ Bouncer (deceased) committed an offence punishable under section 386, Indian Penal Code within my cognizance.
Thirteenthly, on 17.05.2017, 18.05.2017, 19.05.2017 and 22.05.2017 and subsequently at Catholic Syrian Bank, Sector 34, Chandigarh you accused Daljeet Singh @ Rubbal in pursuance of the above said criminal conspiracy with your co- accused Sanjeev Mahajan cheated Manager, Catholic Syrian Bank by dishonestly induced him to encash cheques bearing no. 699981, 699982, 699985, 699991 to usurp the cheque amount and thereby you accused Daljeet Singh@ Rubbal and Sanjeev Mahajan committed an offence u/s 417 of IPC within my cognizance.
Fourteenthly, on 22.02.2019 in the area of Corporation Bank (now Union Bank of India), Sector 8, Chandigarh you accused Gurpreet Singh in pursuance of the above said criminal conspiracy with your co-accused Satpal Daggar, Kahlinder Singh Kadian, Sanjeev Mahajan cheated Akanksha Rastogi, Assistant Manager of the said Bank by pretending yourself to be Rahul Mehta and thereby fraudulently / dishonestly inducing the bank manager to add the name of Rahul Mehta with the pre-existing saving bank account No.520101259103133 of Khalinder Singh in order to enable you and your co-accused to jointly operate the said saving account to cause financial loss and to usurp the abovesaid house and money received in said account on sale of said house and thereby you accused Gurpreet Singh committed an offence punishable under Section 419, Indian Penal Code whereas your co-accused including accused Satpal Dagar, Khalinder Singh, Sanjeev Mahajan committed an offence punishable under Section 419 r.w. Section 120-B IPC and within my cognizance.
16Fiteenthly, on 01.03.2019 in the area of O/o Sub Registrar, Sector 17, Chandigarh you accused Gurpreet Singh in pursuance of the above said criminal conspiracy with accused Satpal Dagar, Khalinder Singh Kadian, Sanjeev Mahajan, Arvind Singla, Saurav Gupta, Manish Gupta, cheated Dinesh then Sub Registrar, Chandigarh by impersonating yourself as Rahul Mehta before the Sub-registrar and thereby fraudulently and dishonestly inducing him to register a Deed cancelling the General Power of Attorney dated 27.04.2017 executed between Rahul Mehta and Khalinder Singh Kadian & Arvind Singla and to register a sale deed in favour of Saurabh Gupta in order to usurp the abovesaid house owned by Rahul Mehta and to cause financial loss to Rahul Mehta and you accused Gurpreet Singh have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 419, Indian Penal Code whereas your co- accused Satpal Dagar, Khalinder Singh Kadian, Sanjeev Mahajan, Arvind Singla, Saurabh Gupta, Manish Gupta, thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 419 read with Section 120-B IPC and within my cognizance Sixteenthly, on 01.03.2019 in the area of office of Sub Registrar, Sector 17, Chandigarh you accused Gurpreet Singh in conspiracy with accused Satpal Dagar, Khalinder Singh Kadian, Sanjeev Mahajan, Arvind Singla, Saurabh Gupta, Manish Gupta, cheated Dinesh, the then Sub Registrar, Chandigarh by representing yourself as Rahul Mehta and thereby fraudulently and dishonestly induced him to register execution of sale deed w.r.t. H.No.340, Sector 37-A, Chandigarh in favour of Saurabh Gupta by you, which caused damage/harm to the said Rahul Mehta of his property, and that you accused Gurpreet Singh have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 419, Indian Penal Code, r.w. Section 120-B IPC and within my cognizance.
Seventeenthly, on 22.02.2019 in the area of office of Sub Registrar, Sector 17, Chandigarh, you accused Corporation Bank (now Union Bank of India), Sector 8, Chandigarh you accused Gurpreet Singh in pursuance of the above said criminal conspiracy with accused Satpal Dagar, Khalinder Singh Kadian, Sanjeev Mahajan and others, impersonated yourself as Rahul Mehta before Akansha Rastogi, Assistant manager and thereby dishonestly induced her to add the name of Rahul Mehta as a co-joint holder with already 17 existing saving back account No. 520101259103133 of Khalinder Singh and to convert the said account from individual to either or survivor to get misappropriated the sale proceeds received in the said account pertaining to the house in question and you accused Gurpreet Singh thereby committed an offence punishable under section 420, Indian Penal Coe whereas your co-accused Satpal Dagar, Khalinder Singh, Sanjeev Mahajan and others thereby committed an offence punishable under section 420 r.w. Section 120-B IPC and within my cognizance.
Eighteenthly, on 01.03.2019 in the area of office of Sub Registrar, Sector 17, Chandigarh you accused Gurpreet Singh in pursuance of the above said criminal conspiracy with accused Satpal Dagar, Khalinder Singh Kadian, Sanjeev Mahajan, Arvind Singla, Saurabh Gupta, Manish Gupta and others impersonated and presented yourself as Rahul Mehta before Dinesh, the sub-registrar, Chandigarh by dishonestly inducing him to register the Deed for cancellation of for general power of attorney 27.04.2017 at Sr. No. 864 Book No. 4 and registration of the sale deed at Sr. No.7500 Book No.1 on dated 01.03.2019 for the House No. 340, Sector 37-A, Chandigarh in favour of Saurabh Gupta and thereafter to deliver the said registered cancellation deed and sale deed to you and accused persons to get usurped said house and the sale proceeds thereof and thereby you accused Satpal Dagar, Khalinder Singh Kadian, Sanjeev Mahajan, Arvind Singla, Saurabh Gupta, Manish Gupta thereby committed an offence punishable under section 420, Indian Penal Code read with under Section 120-B IPC and within my cognizance.
Nineteenthly, That on 01.03.2019 in the area of office of Sub Registrar, Sector 17, Chandigarh you accused Gurpreet Singh in pursuance of the above said criminal conspiracy with accused Satpal Dagar, Khalinder Singh Kadian, Sanjeev Mahajan, Arvind Singla, Saurabh Gupta, Manish Gupta, cheated Dinesh, the then Sub Registrar, Chandigarh by dishonestly inducing him to register the execution of sale deed w.r.t. H.No.340, Sector 37-A, Chandigarh in favour of Saurabh Gupta, believing your misrepresentation he registered sale deed w.r.t. H.No.340, Sector 37-A, Chandigarh at Sr. No.7500 Book No.1 on dated 01.03.2019 and that you accused Gurpreet Singh thereby committed an offence punishable under section 420, Indian Penal Code whereas you 18 accused Satpal Dagar, Khalinder Singh Kadian, Sanjeev Mahajan, Arvind Singla, Saurabh Gupta, Manish Gupta thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 420 r.w. Section 120-B IPC and within my cognizance.
Twentythly, before or on about 12.01.2017 in the area of H.No.340, .... accused Sanjeev Mahajan, Shekhar and Surjeet @ Bouncer (since deceased) and others, committed house-trespass by entering into H.No.340, Sector 37-A, Chandigarh in possession of Rahul Mehta and used as a human dwelling after having made preparations for causing hurt, assault, and to wrongfully restrain Rahul Mehta and thereby you accused Sanjeev Mahajan, Shekhar and Surjeet @ bouncer (since deceased) committed under Section 452 IPC and your co-accused committed an offence punishable under section 452, Indian Penal Code, read with Section 120-B IPC and within my cognizance.
Twentyfirstly, on or before 22.02.2019 in the area of Corporation Bank, Sector 8, Chandigarh, you accused Gurpreet Singh in pursuance of above said criminal conspiracy with your co-accused Satpal Dagar, Arvind Singla and Sanjeev Mahajan, forged a purported valuable security namely account opening form and specimen signature sheet of pre-existing saving bank account number 520101259103133 purportedly signed by Rahul Mehta, and thereby you accused Gurpreet Singh committed an offence punishable under Section 467 Indian Penal Code, whereas, your co-accused Sanjeev Mahajan, Satpal Dagar and Arvind Singla and others thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 467 read with Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance.
Twenty secondly, on 01.03.2019 in the area of Estate Office, Sector 17, Chandigarh you accused Gurpreet Singh in pursuance of abovesaid criminal conspiracy with accused Sanjeev Mahajan, Khalinder Singh, Satpal Dagar, Arvind Singla, Manish & Saurabh Gupta forged purported valuable security namely cancellation of General power of Attorney dated 27.04.2017 and thereby you accused Gurpreet Singh committed an offence punishable under section 467 read with Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code, within my cognizance.
Twentythirdly, on 01.03.2019 in the area of Estate Office, Sector 17, Chandigarh you accused 19 Gurpreet Singh in pursuance of the above said criminal conspiracy with co-accused Sanjeev Mahajan, Khalinder Singh, Satpal Dagar, Arvind Singla, Manish & Saurabh Gupta forged purported valuable security namely sale deed dated 01.03.2019 with respect to H.No.340, Sector 37- A, Chandigarh in favour of Saurabh Gupta and thereby you accused Gurpreet Singh committed an offence punishable under section 467, Indian Penal Code, whereas, your co-accused Sanjeev Mahajan, Khalinder Singh, Satpal Dagar, Arvind Singla, Manish & Saurabh Gupta and others thereby committed an offence punishable under section 467 read with Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance.
Twentyfouthly, on or before 22.02.2019 in the area of Corporation Bank, Sector 8, Chandigarh, you accused Gurpreet Singh in pursuance of abovesaid criminal conspiracy with your co- accused Satpal Dagar, Arvind Singla and Sanjeev Mahajan forged purported valuable security namely account opening form and specimen signature sheet of pre-existing saving bank account number 520101259103133 purportedly signed by Rahul Mehta intending that it shall be used for the purpose of cheating and thereby you accused Gurpreet Singh committed an offence punishable under Section 468, Indian Penal Code, whereas, your co-accused Sanjeev Mahajan, Satpal Dagar and Arvind Singla and others thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 468 read with Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance.
Twentyfifthly, on 01.03.2019 in the area of Estate Office, Sector 17, Chandigarh you accused Gurpreet Singh in pursuance of abovesaid criminal conspiracy with co-accused Sanjeev Mahajan, Khalinder Singh, Satpal Dagar, Arvind Singla, Manish & Saurabh Gupta, forged cancellation Deed Power of Attorney dated 27.04.2017 with respect to H.No.340, Sector 37-A. Chandigarh, intending that it shall be used for the purpose of cheating, and thereby you accused Gurpreet Singh committed an offence punishable under 468 Indian Penal Code, whereas your co-accused Sanjeev Mahajan, Khalinder Sing Satpal Dagar, Arvind Singla, Manish & Saurabh Gupta and other committed an offence punishable under section 468 read with Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance.
20Twentysixthly, on 01.03.2019 in the area of Estate Office, Sector 17, Chandigarh you accused Gurpreet Singh in pursuance of abovesaid criminal conspiracy with co-accused Sanjeev Mahajan, Khalinder Singh, Satpal Dagar, Arvind Singla, Manish & Saurabh Gupta, forged sale deed dated 01.03.2019 with respect to H.No.340, Sector 37- A, Gupta, in favour of accused Saurabh Gupta, intending that it shall be used for the purpose of cheating, and thereby you accused Gurpreet Singh committed an offence punishable under Section 468 Indian Penal Code, whereas, your co-accused Sanjeev Mahajan, Khalinder Singh, Satpal Dagar, Arvind Singla, Manish & Saurabh Gupta and others thereby committed an offence punishable under section 468 read with Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance.
Twentyseventhly, on or after 01.03.2019 in the area of HDFC Ltd., Sector 8, Chandigarh you accused Khalinder Singh in pursuance of said criminal conspiracy with co-accused Sanjeev Mahajan, Gurpreet Singh, Satpal Dagar, Arvind Singla, Manish & Saurabh Gupta and others fraudulently and dishonestly used as genuine deed of cancellation of General Power of Attorney dated 01.03.2019 before the officials of HDFC Ltd., which you knew at the time when you used it to be a forged document, and that you accused Khalender Singh have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 471, Indian Penal Code, whereas, your co-accused Sanjeev Mahajan, Gurpreet Singh, Satpal Dagar, Arvind Singla, Manish & Saurabh Gupta and others thereby committed an offence punishable under section 471 read with Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance.
Twentyeighthly, on or after 01.03.2019 in the area of HDFC Ltd., Sector 8, Chandigarh you accused Khalinder Singh in pursuance of said criminal conspiracy with co-accused Sanjeev Mahajan, Gurpreet Singh, Satpal Dagar, Arvind Singla, Manish & Saurabh Gupta and others fraudulently and dishonestly used as genuine sale deed dated 01.03.2019 with respect to H.No.340, Sector 37-A, Chandigarh, which you knew at the time when you used it to be a forged document, and that you accused Khalender Singh have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 471, Indian Penal Code, whereas, your co- accused Sanjeev Mahajan, Gurpreet Singh, Satpal Dagar, Arvind Singla, Manish & Saurabh Gupta and others thereby committed an offence 21 punishable under section 471 read with Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance.
Twentyninethly, on or after 01.03.2019 in the area of Estate Office, Sector 17, Chandigarh you accused Saurabh Gupta in pursuance of said criminal conspiracy with co-accused Sanjeev Mahajan, Khalinder Singh, Satpal Dagar, Arvind Singla and Manish Gupta and others fraudulently and dishonestly used as genuine sale deed dated 01.03.2019 with respect to H.No.340, Sector 37- A, Chandigarh, which you knew at the time when you used it to be a forged document, and that you accused Saurabh Gupta have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 471, Indian Penal Code, whereas, your co-accused Sanjeev Mahajan, Khalinder Singh, Satpal Dagar, Arvind Singla and Manish Gupta and others thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 471 read with Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance.
Thirtythly, before 22.02.2018 in H.No.140, Sector 11-A, Chandigarh you accused Khalinder Singh in pursuance of the above said criminal conspiracy with your co-accused Satpal Dagar and others, had in your possession affidavit of Rajiv Kumar, attested copy of fake passport belonging to Rajiv Kumar, authority letter issued by Rajiv Kumar in favour of Anupam Chhetri falling under one of the descriptions mentioned in section 467, Indian Penal Code, purported to be attested by S.Harwani and H.R. Solicitors, 81, Terrik Road, Southhall, U.K. on 28.12.2017 bearing seals of the above solicitors though carrying forged attestation and seal and fraudulently used as genuine and dishonestly used as genuine and that you have thereby you accused Khalinder Singh Kadian committed an offence punishable under section 474, Indian Penal Code, and your co-accused Satpal Dagar and others committed an offence punishable under section 474, Indian Penal Code, read with Section 120-B IPC and within my cognizance.
Thirtyfirstly, on 01.03.2019 in the area of Estate Office, Sector 17, Chandigarh you accused Gurpreet Singh in pursuance of the above said criminal conspiracy with your co-accused Sanjeev Mahajan, Arvind Singla, Satpal Dagar, Khalinder Singh, fraudulently and dishonestly got cancelled General Power of Attorney dated 27.04.2017 being a valuable security, by presenting yourself as 22 Rahul Mehta before the Sub-Registrar and thereby you accused Gurpreet Singh committed an offence punishable under section 477, Indian Penal Code, whereas your co- accused Sanjeev Mahajan, Arvind Singla, Satpal Dagar, Khalinder Singh and others committed an offence punishable under section 477 r.w. Section 120 B Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance.
Thirtysecondly, on 22.05.2017 in the area of Police Station, Sector 39, Chandigarh in pursuance of the above said criminal conspiracy you accused Rajdeep Singh intentionally enriched yourself by illegally receiving a bribe for a sum of Rs.5 lacs from your co-accused Sanjeev Mahajan to extend undue favour to Sanjeev Mahajan and others to help them misappropriate and usurp H.No.340, Sector 37-A, Chandigarh and thereby you accused Rajdeep Singh committed an offence of Criminal Misconduct punishable under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act within my cognizance whereas you accused Sanjeev Mahajan had committed an offence punishable under Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-B of IPC and within my cognizance.
Thirtythirdly, on 22.05.2017 in the area of Police Station, Sector 39, Chandigarh in pursuance of the above said criminal conspiracy you accused Sanjeev Mahajan paid a sum of Rs. 5 Lakh to Insp. Rajdeep Singh, SHO-34, Chandigarh a public servant as a motive or reward to induce Insp. Rajdeep Singh a public servant to get filed a criminal complaint filed by Pandit Sita Ram, former SSP in order to help you and others usurp and misappropriate the house bearing House No. 340, Sector 37, Chandigarh in the possession of Rahul Mehta with a weak state of mind and thereby you accused Sanjeev Mahajan committed an offence punishable under Section 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 and within my cognizance.
Lastly, on 22.05.2017 in the area of Police Station, Sector 39, Chandigarh in pursuance of the above said criminal conspiracy you accused Sanjeev Mahajan abetted the receipt of bribe for a sum of Rs. 5 Lakh by Insp. Rajdeep Singh, SHO- 34, Chandigarh as a motive and reward to help you and others to usurp and misappropriate the house bearing House No. 340, Sector37, Chandigarh in the possession of Rahul Mehta having a weak state of mind and thereby you accused Sanjeev Mahajan committed an offence 23 punishable under Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and within my cognizance. "
20. During the course of arguments, it was pointed out by learned Senior Counsel representing the applicant that the Challan-I was presented in the criminal case on 30th April, 2021 wherein prosecution had cited 78 witnesses. Subsequently, Challan-II was submitted on 6.8.2021 with a list of 29 more witnesses and Challan-III was presented on 17.9.2021 with list of four more witnesses. Still further, Challan- IV was presented by the prosecution on 17.12.2011. A total number of 107 witnesses have been cited by the prosecution in all the four challans presented on different dates. Charges in the criminal case were framed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 28.1.2022. By now, the prosecution could examine 7 witnesses only.
21. In the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove, we are of the view that the criminal proceedings will take a long time to conclude and it will not be appropriate and expedient to stay the departmental proceedings in view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in STATE OF 24 RAJASTHAN V. B.K. MEENA (1996) 6 SCC 417 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced, but at the same time it has been stated that if a criminal case is unduly delayed, that may itself be a good ground for going ahead with the disciplinary proceedings. It has further been ruled that it must be remembered that interests of administration demand that undesirable elements are thrown out and any charge of misdemeanour is enquired into promptly. The disciplinary proceedings are meant not really to punish the guilty but to keep the administrative machinery unsullied by getting rid of bad elements. The interest of the delinquent officer also lies in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. If he is not guilty of the charges, his honour should be vindicated at the earliest possible moment and if he is guilty, he should be dealt with promptly according to law. It is not also in the interest of administration that persons accused of serious misdemeanour should be continued in office indefinitely, i.e., for long periods awaiting the result of criminal proceedings. Considering the facts of this 25 case, we are of the opinion that it will not be in the interest of administration to keep the departmental proceedings in abeyance awaiting the result of said criminal proceedings.
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CAPT. M. PAUL ANTHONY V. BHARAT GOLD MINES LTD. AIR 1999 SC 1416 has laid down broad parameters, to deal with the cases where departmental proceedings and criminal cases are based on identical set of facts. These are that (i) departmental proceedings and proceedings in criminal case can proceed simultaneously, as there is no bar in their being conducted, simultaneously, though separately;
(ii) if the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and charge in criminal case against delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of criminal case; (iii) whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case will depend upon the nature of the offence, the nature of case launched against the 26 employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during the investigation or as reflected in the charge sheet; (iv) the factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed and (v) if the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of pendency of criminal case can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, administration may get rid of him at the earliest.
23. Taking a serious note of the undue delay caused in enquiry proceedings, the Hon'ble Supreme court in the matter of PREM NATH BALI VS. HIGH COURT OF DELHI & OTHERS, (2015) 16 SCC 415, issued direction to every employer (whether State or Private) to make sincere endeavour to complete the departmental enquiry proceedings once initiated against the delinquent employee within a reasonable 27 time by giving priority to such proceedings and it should be concluded within a period of 6 months as an outer limit. Though the respondents should have acted promptly, after issuance of order dated 9.4.2021 by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh, and the enquiry proceedings should have been concluded by now, but it appears that they also remained oblivious of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.M. Bali's case (supra).
24. In DEPOT MANAGER, A.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. MOHD. YOUSUF MIYA AND ORS. 1997 SCC (L&S) 548, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ruled that there is no bar to proceed simultaneously with the departmental enquiry unless the charge in the criminal trial is of a grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law.
Though, learned senior counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the instant case also the complicated questions of facts and law are involved but he was not able to support his plea citing such a complexity in the domestic enquiry wherein the enquiry officer has been entrusted with the task to submit the report with 28 regard to the applicant's conduct as the Supervisory Officer, Police Station, Sector 39, Chandigarh
25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STANZEN TOYOTETSU INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. GIRISH V. AND OTHERS (2014) 3 SCC 636 has clearly held that the enquiry proceedings can continue simultaneously and no fetters can be laid on the said proceedings because of the pendency of criminal trial.
There is no straightjacket formula that in every case wherever the disciplinary proceedings are initiated simultaneously, those should be stayed during pendency of the criminal trial.
26. The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No.7539 of 2021 (O&M) - DR. BALWINDER KUMAR SHARMA VS. HON'BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, decided on 28.5.2021 has considered the issue threadbare and held that the burden of proof and the manner, in which the allegations are to be proved, are different for criminal trial and disciplinary proceedings. It was held that if ultimately the employee is found not guilty in criminal trial, his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the employer's decision to get rid of him 29 by way of disciplinary proceedings at the earliest is endorsed. In any case, the burden of proof and the manner in which the allegations are to be proved, are different for criminal trial and disciplinary proceedings.
27. So far as the argument of learned senior counsel for the applicant that the applicant's interest will be seriously prejudiced if he is not provided assistance of an Advocate in the departmental proceedings is concerned, we do not find any substance in the said argument as well.
28. As per the Standing Order No. 75 of 2014 on the subject of conducting the departmental enquiries issued by the respondents, engagement of an Advocate or a Lawyer by a police officer during a departmental enquiry cannot be allowed. Even there is no such provision in the Punjab Police Rules, 1934.
However, in order to provide a fair chance to a delinquent in the domestic enquiry, a right has been accorded that he can take assistance of retired or serving police personnel as a defence assistant with the permission of the disciplinary authority.
29. We cannot ignore the fact that the respondents have initiated the enquiry proceedings against the 30 applicant after obtaining the requisite permission from the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh wherein by way of an order dated 26.11.2021, a direction has already been issued to Superintendent, Burail Jail to facilitate the process of carrying out the enquiry proceedings in the jail premises as per the Jail Manual. The operative portion of the order dated 26.11.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh is reproduced here as under:-
"Admittedly an FIR is lying lodged against inspector Rajdeep Singh. It is also not in dispute that regular departmental enquiry has been initiated against him. Inspector Rajdeep Singh is in judicial custody. So Superintendent Burail Jail, Chandigarh as per jail Manual will facilitate carrying out of regular departmental enquiry in jail premises against Insp. Rajdeep Singh and will accordingly allow the witnesses to be examined by the department as well as the delinquent official in the said inquiry proceedings after taking all the requisite precaution for safety of everyone inside the jail premises and strictly in terms of directions provided in jail manual for said purpose. Accordingly, the present application is disposed off. Papers be attached with the main file". "
30. In our opinion, the applicant herein can avail the assistance of a retired / serving police personnel as a defence assistant in the disciplinary proceedings and there is no fallacy in the communication issued by the respondents on 7.3.2022, declining him the assistance 31 of an Advocate/Lawyer during the departmental proceedings.
31. In the conspectus of discussions made hereinabove, the present Original Application sans merit and the same deserves to be dismissed.
32. Accordingly, the Original Application is hereby dismissed
33. However, there shall be no orders so as to costs.
(RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA) (SURESH KUMAR MONGA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
HC*