AFAQ HAIDER Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is aggrieved by an order of suspension passed against him on 27th September, 2018, as also its continuance for the last one year. The order is essentially assailed on the ground that on the identical charge a first information report has also been lodged against the petitioner in Case Crime No. 250 of 2018, under Sections 8 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and that the authorities are not justified in proceeding departmentally on the same charge. It is contended that since the allegations are identical and the basis to proceed both departmentally and in criminal trial are same, therefore, prejudice would be caused to the petitioner in case disciplinary proceedings and criminal trial is allowed to go on simultaneously. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Coal Mines Ltd. reported in AIR 1999 SC 1416 as well as State Bank of India and others vs. R. B. Sharma reported in (2004) 7 SCC 27. Reliance is also placed upon a decision of this Court in Dhirendra Kumar Tiwari vs. State of U.P. and others being Writ Petition No.2705 of 2012, decided on 16.1.2002, in which following observations have been made:-

(2.) The judgment in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Coal Mines Ltd. 1999 ( 3) S.C.C. 679 (Supra) has been followed in the case of State Bank of India and others Versus R.B. Sharma 2004 (7) S.C.C. 27 . Relevant paragraphs 7, 8 and 11 are being quoted below:-

(3.) Principles laid down above are clear and categorical that there is no bar in simultaneous separate proceeding of criminal case as well as departmental proceeding. Further if departmental proceedings and criminal case are based on similar set of facts and charges in criminal case against delinquent employee is of grave nature which involves complicated question of fact and law, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till conclusion of criminal case. Whether complicated question of fact and law are involved or not will depend upon the nature of the offence, and the case lodged against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected during the investigation or as reflected in the charge sheet. Thus it is clear that departmental proceeding can proceed, as there is no bar and only when nature of charge in criminal case are grave and complicated question of fact and law are involved, then departmental proceedings can be stayed and further also in contingency when departmental enquiry would seriously prejudice delinquent in his defence at the trial, and even these facts cannot be considered in isolation to stay departmental proceeding but due regard will have to be given to the fact that departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed.