Allahabad High Court
Deep Narayan Paswan vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 12 April, 2022
Author: Saral Srivastava
Bench: Saral Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved on 15.11.2021
Delivered on 12.04.2022
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14754 of 2021
Petitioner :- Deep Narayan Paswan
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Mishra,Pankaj Kumar Srivastava,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
1. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Vikram Bahadur Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for state-respondents.
2. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has prayed for the following main relief:-
"a. Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of certiorari, quashing the departmental disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Rule 14 (1) of Uttar Pradesh Police Officer of Subordinate Ranks, (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, in pursuance of the departmental charge-sheet, dated 06/07/2021, (contained as Annexure-1) to the writ petition.
b. Issue, a writ, order or direction, in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents, to stay the further departmental disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner in pursuance of the departmental charge-sheet dated 06/07/2021.
c. Issue, a writ, order or direction, in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents, to pass appropriate order on the application of the petitioner in accordance with law, with regard to stay the departmental disciplinary proceeding till the disposal of the criminal case."
3. The petitioner is a Constable in the U.P. Police Department and is posted at Reserve Police Lines, Ballia. It appears that an F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No.0157 of 2020, under Section 3/5A/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ''Act, 1960') and Section 307 of I.P.C. has been registered against the petitioner.
4. The petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 17.11.2020 passed by respondent no.3-Superintendent of Police, Ballia. It is stated that the petitioner has been enlarged on bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5255 of 2021.
5. The petitioner was issued a charge sheet on 06.07.2021 on the charge that he was found unauthorisedly absent on 16.11.2020 from QRT duty and was found involved in smuggling of animals during the period of his absence. In the charge sheet, there were eight witnesses to be produced against the petitioner. The names of these witnesses are as follows:-
क्र०सं० नाम साक्षी साक्ष्य का प्रकार
1.
आरक्षी पंकज कुमार यादव, गणना कार्यालय, पुलिस लाइन, बलिया।
आरक्षी 052091836 दीपनारायण पासवान थाना उभाँव जनपद बलिया की अतिरिक्त विशेष क्यूआरटी डियुटी पुलिस लाइन, बलिया में लगाये जाने तथा दिनांकः 16.11.2020 को डियुटी हेतु तलाश किये जाने पर न मिलने की पुष्टि करेंगे।
2. आरक्षी आशीष कुमार पाण्डेय, गणना कार्यालय, पुलिस लाइन, बलिया।
आरक्षी 052091836 दीपनारायण पासवान थाना उभाँव, जनपद बलिया की अतिरिक्त विशेष क्यूआरटी डियुटी पुलिस लाइन, बलिया में लगाये जाने तथा दिनांकः 16.11.2020 को डियुटी हेतु तलाश किये जाने पर न मिलने पर पुलिस लाइन, बलिया की सामान्य दैनिकी में दिनांकः 16.11.2020 को रपट संख्या 08 समय 08.00 बजे पर रपट गैर हाजिरी अंकित किये जाने की पुष्टि करेंगे।
3. आरक्षी मु० इन्द्रजीत, जी०डी० कार्यालय, पुलिस लाइन, बलिया।
आरक्षी 052091836 दीपनारायण पासवान थाना उभाँव जनपद बलिया की अतिरिक्त विशेष क्यूआरटी डियुटी पुलिस लाइन, बलिया में लगाये जाने तथा दिनांकः 16.11.2020 को समय 08.00 बजे पर आरक्षी आशीष कुमार पाण्डेय, गणना मुशी द्वारा अतिरिक्त विशेष क्यूआरटी डियुटी, पुलिस लाइन, बलिया से अनुपस्थित आरक्षी 052091836 दीपनारायण पासवान की डियुटी हेतु तलाश किये जाने व न मिलने पर कां० पंकज कुमार यादव द्वारा दिनांकः 16.11.2020 को रपट संख्या 08 समय 08.00 बजे पर गैर हाजिरी अंकित किये जाने की पुष्टि करेंगे।
4. श्री अरूण कुमार सिंह, प्रतिसार निरीक्षक, पुलिस लाइन, बलिया आरक्षी 052091836 दीपनारायण पासवान थाना उभाँव जनपद बलिया की अतिरिक्त विशेष क्यूआरटी डियुटी पुलिस लाइन, बलिया में लगाये जाने तथा आरक्षी 052091836 दीपनारायण पासवान के डियुटी उपस्थित न होने की पुष्टि करेंगे।
5. श्री योगेन्द्र बहादुर सिंह, प्रभारी निरीक्षक, उभाँव जनपद बलिया।
आरक्षी 052091836 दीपनारायण पासवान के लगभग 01 वर्ष से थाना उभाँव जनपद बलिया में आरक्षी पद पर कार्यरत रहने, आरक्षी 052091836 दीपनारायण पासवान के पुलिस अधीक्षक के आदेश के क्रम में अग्रिम आदेश तक के लिये अतिरिक्त क्यू०आर०टी० डियुटी प्रथम के लिये लगाये जाने, आदेश के क्रम में आरक्षी 052091836 दीपनारायण पासवान की रवानगी दिनांकः 15.11.2020 को पुलिस लाइन, बलिया के लिये किये जाने, थाना उभाँव से अतिरिक्त क्यू०आर०टी० डियुटी प्रथम, पुलिस लाइन, बलिया के लिये रवानगी हो जाने के बाद से आरक्षी 052091836 दीपनारायण पासवान के थाना उभाँव पर नही आने-जाने की पुष्टि करेंगे।
6. श्री तूफानी सिंह 812690273 प्रभारी अतिरिक्त क्यूआरटी, प्रथम पुलिस लाइन, बलिया।
दिनांकः 16.11.2020 को समय 07.45 बजे पर आरक्षी 052091836 दीपनारायण पासवान के अतिरिक्त क्य०आर०टी० प्रथम डियुटी हेतु उपस्थित न होने तथा गणना के पुलिस कर्मी द्वारा रपट गैरहाजिरी अंकित किये जाने की पुष्टि करेंगे।
7. उ०नि० 972500427 श्री शैलेष कुमार, थानाध्यक्ष, मईल जनपद देवरिया।
थाना मईल, जनपद देवरिया पर मु०अ०सं०-157/2020 धारा 307 भादवि व 3/5/8 गोबध निवारण अधिनिय व 11 पशु क्रूरता अधिनियम में आरक्षी 052091836 दीपनारायण पासवान के नामजद अभियुक्त होने व उसकी गिरफ्तारी किये जाने की पुष्टि करेंगे।
8. श्री जगवीर सिंह चौहान, क्षेत्राधिकारी सदर, बलिया।
पुलिस अधीक्षक, बलिया के आदेश संख्याः न-272/2020 दिनांकः 17.11.2020 के अनुपालन में आरक्षी 052091836 दीपनारायण पासवान के विरूद्ध प्रारम्भिक जाँच किये जाने एवं इस सबंध में प्रेषित प्रारम्भिक जाँच आख्या दिनांकितः 11.12.2020 की पुष्टि करेंगे।
6. It appears that the charge sheet in criminal case bearing Case Crime No.0157 of 2020 has also been filed on the charge that there was sufficient evidence which establishes the involvement of petitioner in the offence under Section 3/5A/8 and Section 11 of the Act, 1960.
7. The case of the petitioner is that disciplinary proceeding is merely based upon the criminal proceeding against the petitioner, and charges in both the proceedings are identical, therefore, during pendency of criminal proceedings, disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner may be stayed. The petitioner in support of the said contention has placed reliance upon Regulations 492 and 493 of Police Regulations.
8. It is stated that if criminal proceeding and disciplinary proceeding goes on simultaneously, that would adversely affect the defence of petitioner in the criminal proceeding and accordingly, in the aforesaid backdrop, the petitioner has prayed for the reliefs, extracted above.
9. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are 16 witnesses, who are to be examined as per the charge sheet in the criminal trial. The names of those witnesses are as follows:-
(क्रं.सं.) (नाम) (पिता/पति का नाम) (जन्म तिथि/वर्ष) (व्यवसाय) (पता) (प्रस्तुत किए जाने वाले साक्ष्य का प्रकार) 1 शैलेन्द्र कुमार थानाध्यक्ष 1975 वर्तमान पताः थाना मईल, देवरिया, उत्तर प्रदेश, भारत स्थायी पताः थाना मईल, देवरिया, उत्तर प्रदेश भारत शिकायतकर्ता 2 उ०नि० मनोज कुमार प्रजापति वर्तमान पताः थाना मईल, देवरिया, उत्तर प्रदेश, भारत स्थायी पताः थाना मईल, देवरिया, उत्तर प्रदेश भारत पुलिस साक्षी 3 का०रामअशीष कुमार वर्तमान पताः थाना मईल, देवरिया, उत्तर प्रदेश, भारत स्थायी पताः थाना मईल, देवरिया, उत्तर प्रदेश भारत पुलिस साक्षी 4 का० सूरज यादव वर्तमान पताः थाना मईल, देवरिया, उत्तर प्रदेश, भारत स्थायी पताः थाना मईल, देवरिया, उत्तर प्रदेश भारत पुलिस साक्षी 5 का० अखिल कुमार सिंह वर्तमान पताः थाना मईल, देवरिया, उत्तर प्रदेश, भारत स्थायी पताः थाना मईल, देवरिया, उत्तर प्रदेश भारत पुलिस साक्षी 6 हे०का०नारंतक यादव वर्तमान पताः थाना मईल, देवरिया, उत्तर प्रदेश, भारत स्थायी पताः थाना मईल, देवरिया, उत्तर प्रदेश भारत पुलिस साक्षी 7 का० श्याम कुंवर यादव वर्तमान पताः थाना मईल, देवरिया, उत्तर प्रदेश, भारत स्थायी पताः थाना मईल, देवरिया, उत्तर प्रदेश भारत पुलिस साक्षी 8 का० सनत राजभर वर्तमान पताः थाना मईल, देवरिया, उत्तर प्रदेश, भारत स्थायी पताः थाना मईल, देवरिया, उत्तर प्रदेश भारत पुलिस साक्षी 9 का० मनीष गिरी वर्तमान पताः थाना मईल, देवरिया, उत्तर प्रदेश, भारत स्थायी पताः थाना मईल, देवरिया, उत्तर प्रदेश भारत पुलिस साक्षी 10 का० इन्द प्रकाश वर्तमान पताः थाना मईल, देवरिया, उत्तर प्रदेश, भारत स्थायी पताः थाना मईल, देवरिया, उत्तर प्रदेश भारत पुलिस साक्षी 11 हे०का० अशोक तिवारी वर्तमान पताः थाना मईल, देवरिया, उत्तर प्रदेश, भारत स्थायी पताः थाना मईल, देवरिया, उत्तर प्रदेश भारत पुलिस साक्षी 12 डा० सुरेश यादव पशु चिकित्साधिकारी वर्तमान पताः पशु चिकित्सालय भागलपुर, मईल, देवरिया, उत्तर प्रदेश, भारत स्थायी पताः पशु चिकित्सालय भागलपुर, मईल, देवरिया, उत्तर प्रदेश, भारत विशेषज्ञ साक्ष्य 13 उ०नि० रामचन्द यादव वर्तमान पताः थाना मईल, देवरिया, उत्तर प्रदेश, भारत स्थायी पताः थाना मईल, देवरिया, उत्तर प्रदेश भारत अनुसांधन साक्षी 14 का० राजाराम वर्तमान पताः थाना उभांव, उभांव, बलिया, उत्तर प्रदेश, भारत स्थायी पताः थाना उभांव, उभांव, बलिया, उत्तर प्रदेश, भारत औपचारिक गवाह 15 प्रतिसार निरी० श्री अरूण कुमार वर्तमान पताः रिजर्व पुलिस लाईन बलिया, कोतवाली, बलिया, उत्तर प्रदेश, भारत स्थायी पताः रिजर्व पुलिस लाईन बलिया, कोतवाली, बलिया, उत्तर प्रदेश, भारत औपचारिक गवाह 16 का० जयशंकर यादव वर्तमान पताः थाना मईल, देवरिया, उत्तर प्रदेश, भारत स्थायी पताः थाना मईल, देवरिया, उत्तर प्रदेश भारत औपचारिक गवाह
10. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since charges in the disciplinary proceeding and criminal proceeding are identical, therefore, in the event, the disciplinary proceeding is allowed to be continued, criminal trial of the petitioner would be adversely affected. It is further submitted that Regulations 492 and 493 of Police Regulation are specific and clear which prohibits continuance of disciplinary proceeding during the criminal proceeding and as such, during the pendency of criminal trial, disciplinary proceeding should be stayed.
11. Refuting the aforesaid submission, learned Standing Counsel would contend that the charges in the disciplinary proceeding and criminal proceeding are not identical. He submits that charge in the disciplinary proceeding is that petitioner was unauthorisedly absent on 16.11.2020 from QRT duty besides the charge of involvement of petitioner in smuggling of animals. He further submits that the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that charges are identical in both the proceedings i.e. criminal proceeding and disciplinary proceeding are incorrect and against the record. He further submits that the comparison of witnesses to be examined during the disciplinary proceeding and in criminal trial shows that names of witnesses are different. It is further submitted that in the list of names of witnesses to be examined during disciplinary proceeding, only Sri Arun Kumar Singh and Sri Shailesh Kumar whose name appeared at serial no.4 and 7 as witness in the charge sheet in the disciplinary proceeding are common and rest of the witnesses are different, therefore, the contention that continuance of disciplinary proceeding would seriously prejudice the criminal trial of the petitioner is misconceived and not sustainable in law.
12. He further submits that in the instant case, Regulations 492 and 493 of Police Regulations are not attracted, therefore, no reliance can be placed by the petitioner on these two regulations.
13. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.
14. The facts as emerges from the record are that petitioner was suspended by order dated 17.11.2020 on the charge that he was found unauthorisedly absent on 16.11.2020 from QRT duty and was found involved in smuggling of animals during the period of his absence. It further transpires from the record that criminal case bearing Case Crime No.0157 of 2020 has been registered against the petitioner under Section 3/5A/8, Section 11 of the Act, 1960 and Section 307 of I.P.C. in which charge sheet has been filed.
15. Now the question whether during pendency of criminal trial, disciplinary proceeding may be stayed as the continuance of such proceeding would prejudice the criminal trial of the petitioner is to be considered in the present petition.
16. In this regard, it would be apt to refer to the charge sheet filed in the disciplinary proceeding, and perusal of names of witnesses to be examined in the disciplinary proceeding and in criminal proceeding are different except two witnesses namely, Sri Arun Kumar Singh and Sri Shailesh Kumar who are common in both the proceedings.
17. Comparison of the charges in disciplinary proceeding and in criminal proceeding also reveals that in the disciplinary proceeding, besides the charge of involvement of petitioner in smuggling of animals, there is another charge of unauthorized absence from duty. Thus, it is evident that charges in the disciplinary proceeding and criminal proceeding are different and not identical.
18. Further, only two witnesses namely Sri Arun Kumar Singh and Sri Shailesh Kumar are common in disciplinary proceeding and criminal proceeding, therefore, it cannot be said that evidence of witnesses in disciplinary proceeding would seriously prejudice the criminal trial of the petitioner.
19. At this point, it is worth to mention that petitioner has made a bald averment that continuance of disciplinary proceeding and criminal proceeding shall prejudice the criminal trial of the petitioner. There is no specific averment giving details as to how the criminal trial of the petitioner shall be affected if disciplinary proceeding is allowed to be continued. In this respect, paragraph 27 of the writ petition is reproduced herein below:-
"27. That, it is further respectfully submitted that both the Proceedings (Criminal & Departmental Disciplinary Proceeding), relates to the same incident, the Departmental Disciplinary Proceedings should not be permitted to go on as the Defence of the petitioner would be adversely affected in the Criminal Proceedings, as such in view of the fact the enquiry is liable to be stayed, to avoid any prejudice to cause to the delinquent employees in the Criminal Case."
20. In the opinion of the Court, to establish that continuance of disciplinary proceeding shall prejudice the criminal trial of the petitioner, the petitioner has first to demonstrate that the charges against him in criminal proceeding and disciplinary proceeding are identical which is not the case here as there is one additional charge in the disciplinary proceeding which has been detailed above. Secondly, the petitioner has to demonstrate that charge against him is grave and involves complicated question of fact and law, and continuance of disciplinary proceeding would cause prejudice to the criminal trial of the petitioner which the petitioner utterly failed to demonstrate in this case.
21. In such view of the fact, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that continuance of disciplinary proceeding would prejudice the criminal trial of the petitioner is not sustainable in law and is accordingly rejected.
22. Now, coming to the second argument regarding applicability of Regulations 492 and 493 of Police Regulations. In the case in hand, the said argument is not sustainable in view of the judgement of this Court in the case of Rinku Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others 2022 (2) ADJ 83 wherein this Court by placing reliance upon this judgement of this Court in the case of Surendra Singh and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another 2012 (2) ADJ 135 (LB) held that expression 'has been' in Regulation 492 and 493 refers to an event which has already occurred. Paragraphs 20 and 21 of the said judgement are extracted herein below:-
"20. This Court in the case of Surendra Singh and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another 2012 (2) ADJ 135 (LB) had considered the scope of Regulations 492 & 493 of Police Regulation and this Court succinctly explained the meaning of the word 'has been and held that expression 'has been' refers to an event which has already occurred. Paragraphs 21, 27, 28 & 29 of the said judgment are being extracted herein below:-
"21. Regulation 492 clearly says that where a police officer "has been judicially tried". The language is very important. It talks of something which has already happened. The simple language of provision shows where a police officer has been tried judicially and only the judgment is awaited, in such circumstances and in interregnum period, the competent authority should not decide to take further departmental action but should await the decision. In other words, Regulation 492 shall be attracted only when the judicial trial is over but judgment has not been delivered and it is awaited. The words "has been" reflect to something which has performed and accomplished in past and is not continuing in present. The words "has been" refer to the state of affairs as existed in past and it is a present perfect tense. The words "has been" on a plain grammatical construction means, without doubt, the existence of past event i.e. the requisite event has already occurred and completed. The expression "has been" and its connotation have been subject of interpretation before Apex Court and this Court, both, at several occasions and it would be useful to refer a few thereof.
27. The above exposition of law clearly shows that the term "has been" in simple language means a thing already happened and here the term "judicially tried" means that police officer concerned's trial in the court of law is already complete but the decision is awaited.
28. Similarly Regulation 493 is attracted when trial is complete and judgment of trial court has also come, resulting in recording a finding in favour of police officer. It restrain the competent authority in such matter to create a situation where a contrary finding can be recorded in departmental proceedings vis a vis court's verdict and the Regulation provides that such a contingency should not occur hence it prohibits such a course to be followed by competent authority.
29. Going by the above discussion it becomes apparently clear that situation in the present cases do not attract either Regulation 492 or 493 in both these matters since the only stage at which the criminal cases proceeding presently are that a charge sheet has been filed against petitioners. The petitioners cannot be said to have undergone judicial trial so far. The trial is still awaited. For the purpose of understanding the meaning of word "Trial" one may simply refer to the provisions of Cr.P.C. and that would clearly show that an accused can be said to have tried when evidence by prosecution and defence has already led and matter has been argued before trial court. This itself leaves inescapable conclusion that both these writ petitions at this stage have to fail."
21. In the light of interpretation given by this Court in the case of Surendra Singh (supra) relating to Regulations 492 & 493 of Police Regulation, this Court finds that submission of learned counsel for the petitioner based upon Regulations 492 & 493 of Police Regulation is misplaced and is not sustainable in law, since in the instant case only charge sheet in the criminal case has been filed, and trial is yet to begin".
23. Thus, the second argument regarding applicability of Regulations 492 and 493 of Police Regulations is also misconceived in view of the judgement of this Court in the case of Rinku Singh (supra) inasmuch as in the instant case, it is not evident from the record that trial in criminal case has been concluded and only judgement is awaited to get the benefit of Regulations 492 and 493 of Police Regulations.
24. Thus, for the reasons given above, writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.
Order Date:- 12.4.2022 Sattyarth