PIYUSH SAHU Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the Sub Inspector M.P. Police and he has put to challenge, the charge-sheet issued to him vide Annexure P2.

(2.) It is contended by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the impugned charge sheet is bad in law because on the same set of allegations, the petitioner is also facing a Criminal Prosecution and therefore, the petitioner cannot be vexed twice for the same cause because there is commonality of charges between the Criminal Case and in the Departmental Enquiry and if the petitioner is asked to participate in the Departmental Enquiry, he would be required to disclose his defence in the Departmental Enquiry before the witnesses are examined in the Criminal Case.

(3.) It is vehemently argued that in the Criminal Case the accused has a right to remain silent whereas in Departmental Enquiry there is no such right and presumption may be drawn against him if he remains silent and does not put forth his defence. It is argued that since he would be required to cross examine the Departmental witnesses in the Departmental enquiry, his defence to be taken in Criminal trial would be disclosed and the witnesses in the Criminal trial may cover up the defence of the petitioner in their statements in Criminal case and this would be to grave prejudice of the petitioner because upon disclosure of defence in the Criminal case, he stands to be having greater chances convicted in the Criminal case. Then not only that would have a bearing on his service career but it shall also affect the personal liberty of the petitioner. Therefore, it is argued that the chargesheet issued during pendency of the Criminal case is bad in law.