DANIS ANSARI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri B.N. Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. and its authorities respondents. Sri R.B. Singhal, learned A.S.G.I. assisted by Sri Sanjai Kaushik and Sri Sanjai Kumar Yadav, learned Counsel on behalf of Union of India and its authorities respondents have been heard in the second and third writ petitions. A common question is involved in all these writ petitions. The prayer in all these writ petitions is that as criminal cases are pending against the petitioners, who are government employees and on the same facts departmental proceedings are also continuing against them, hence departmental proceedings must be stayed. Stay orders passed in some petitions staying departmental proceedings on the ground of pendency of criminal cases have been placed on record. In some petitions orders have been passed directing disciplinary authority to consider petitioners' representation for staying departmental proceedings. The said orders have been placed on record.

(2.) In the first writ petition the allegation is that petitioner, who is a constable appeared in High School examination in the year 1993-1994 and showed his date of birth as June, 1979, however in 2003-2004 he again appeared in High School examination and showed his date of birth as 1.7.1985. In the second writ petition there are several allegations against the petitioner who is also a constable including the allegation that he sold the government ammunition to other persons. In the third writ petition also petitioner is a constable and allegations are similar as are in the second writ petition. In the fourth writ petition, the allegation against the petitioner, who is constable in Railway Police is that he misbehaved with the passengers of a train in which he was performing his duties and on the protest from the passengers he ran away from the duty. In some of these writ petitions itself mention has been made about the judgment of Supreme Court in Captain M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another, 1999 82 FLR 617.

(3.) The Supreme Court has considered this point in the following authorities: