Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The applicant (Dinesh Singh), who is working as ASI (Dvr.) in the 2nd Respondent-Delhi Police, filed the present OA, seeking to stay the departmental proceedings initiated against him till the conclusion of the criminal proceedings.

2. The admitted facts of the case are that an FIR No.329/09 dated 29.06.2009 under Sections 498A/304B of IPC were registered at PS Shakarpur on the statement of one Shri Rajeev Kumar against one Shri Naresh and others. The applicant Dinesh Singh is the brother-in-law of Shri Naresh, i.e., his sisters husband. In pursuance of the said FIR, and after the investigation by the Police, a chargesheet/final report dated 25.09.2009 has been filed in the Court of Shri Puran Chand, Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma, Delhi. In view of the allegations made by the complainant Rajeev Kumar, against the aforesaid Naresh Kumar and Others, including the applicant, though the applicant was also shown as one of the alleged accused, the Investigating Officer, after a detailed investigation, opined that no specific allegations were found against the accused Dinesh Singh. The learned Magistrate while accepting the said report, considering the statement of the Investigating Officer, that there is no material on record against the applicant, observed that No cognizance has been taken against accused persons shown in Column No.2, who may be summoned as and when any evidence come during the trial. Admittedly, the name of the applicant was also shown in the Column No.2.

3. The respondent-Delhi Police, after a lapse of four years, issued the impugned summary of allegation, under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980, on the ground that an FIR No.329/2009 dated 29.06.2009 was registered under Section 498A/304B of IPC, against the applicant. The said summary of allegation was stated to be served on him on 25.09.2013.

4. Shri S.C.Sagar, the learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the FIR does not contain the name of the applicant. After a thorough enquiry, the Investigating Officer categorically stated that no specific allegations were found against the applicant, which were accepted by the learned Magistrate and accordingly, no cognizance was taken against him. In spite of the same, the respondent-Delhi Police mechanically and without applying their mind, have initiated the departmental proceedings on the sole ground that the name of the applicant was mentioned in the final report of the Investigating Officer.

6. Per contra, Mrs. Pratima Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, would submit that the charges leveled against the applicant in the criminal proceedings are under Section 498A/304B of IPC, and whereas in the departmental proceedings, it is for the violation of the of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 and the scope of inquiry before both the authorities is different and distinct. The learned counsel further submits that as per the settled law there is no bar to proceed simultaneously in the departmental proceedings and the criminal trial and hence, the OA is liable to be dismissed.

(iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed.

(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 the pendency of the 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. (Emphasis supplied) In the instant case, admittedly, the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts. The basis for the impugned initiation of the disciplinary proceedings is the involvement of the applicant in a criminal case under Section 498A/304B of IPC, which are admittedly, not related in any manner with the official functions and duties of the applicant. Therefore, the witnesses and the evidence before both the authorities, would be necessarily, one and the same. Further, admittedly, after the investigation into the charges leveled against the applicant in the criminal case, the Investigating Officer found that there were no specific allegations against the applicant, and the learned Magistrate having accepted the same, has not taken cognizance of charges against the applicant, though observed that if any evidence come against him, during the trial he may be summoned. In this view of the matter, after the order dated 29.09.2009 of the learned Magistrate, the basis for the impugned initiation of the departmental proceedings itself gone. Hence, at the first instance, there is no justification for initiation of the departmental proceedings itself. However, in future, since there is a chance of taking cognizance against the applicant in the criminal trial, basing on the evidence to be adduced, and since the applicant has not sought for quashing of the impugned summary of allegations, we are not inclined to quash the same.