V D SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a member of Railway Protection Force ('RPF' for short). At the relevant time, he was discharging his duty as an Inspector. On 21.04.2010, a trap was laid against him for demanding bribe from the complainant on the basis of a preliminary complaint being C.R. No. 1-3 of 10 was registered at Bharuch ACB Police Station on 20.04.2010. In such complaint, it was alleged that on 12.04.2010, the complainant was called by the petitioner. He was threatened that the complainant was using excess area of the railways than what was granted for parking. If the complainant did not pay Rs. 30,000/- as bribe, the petitioner would have his contract cancelled. He, eventually, reduced his demand to Rs. 15,000/- but insisted that the same must be paid on 21.04.2010 at his office failing which, he would file cases against him and his contract for parking would be cancelled. Pursuant to such complaint, the trap which was laid, according to the administration, was successful. A charge-sheet, on completion of the investigation, was filed before the competent Court at Bharuch. On account of the petitioner's involvement in the said trap case, the department issued a charge-sheet dated 06.01.2011 which contained identical allegations as those in the criminal proceedings. However, department further alleged that, by his conduct, the petitioner had violated Rule 3.1(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Railway Service Conduct Rules, 1966 and that he had acted in a manner prejudical to the discipline and his conduct has discredited the reputation of the Force. He had acted for his personal gain and his conduct was unbecoming of a railway servant.

(2.) On the premise that proceedings parallelly in a criminal case as well as in a departmental inquiry would prejudice the petitioner in his defence in the criminal proceedings, the petitioner filed the present petition and prayed for stay against further hearing of the departmental proceedings.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Virat Popat for the petitioner contended that the allegations in the criminal case as well as in the departmental charge-sheets are identical. Pending the criminal proceedings, therefore, it would not be appropriate or desirable to proceed with the departmental charge-sheet. He further submitted that the petitioner has now crossed the age of superannuation. He, therefore, prayed that the respondents be prevented from proceeding departmentally till the criminal case against the petitioner is pending.