JAI PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the quashing of the order dated 09th January, 2013, whereby his application for staying the departmental disciplinary proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal proceedings was rejected by the authority concerned. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition is that the petitioner is a constable and, a criminal case under Section 376 has been initiated against him, which is pending before the appropriate Court. On the other hand, a disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner on the charges that the petitioner on the pretext of given false assurance to marry Rajni Devi had illicit relationship with her and also made demand of dowry and had also taken objectionable pictures of her.

(2.) THE contention of the petitioner is that the departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings which are continuing simultaneously are based on identical or similar set of facts, and therefore, it would be appropriate that the departmental proceedings should be stayed till the disposal of the criminal case. In this regard, the petitioner has relied upon an decision of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Vs. Sarvesh Berry, 2005 5 ESC 1993as well as a decision of the Supreme Court in Captain M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and other, 1999 3 SCC 679.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, the Court finds that the position of law is well settled, namely, that the departmental proceedings and the criminal proceedings can go on simultaneously, except where a departmental proceeding and a criminal proceeding are based on the same set of facts and evidence and where the witnesses are common in the said cases, the Court has to decide taking into account the said features of the case as to whether simultaneously continuance of both the proceedings would be appropriate and proper or not.