JITENDER MANN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is working as a constable in the Haryana Police, has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 24.5.2002 (Annexure P-3) ordering initiation of regular departmental inquiry against him for issuing a press statement in the Tribune dated 23.5.2002 without prior approval of the competent authority, and also for quashing the charge-sheet dated 27.5.2002 (Annexure P-6) whereby the petitioner is alleged to have got published a news item in the press without permission of any higher officer and as such violated the provisions of rule 14.44 of the Punjab Police Service Rules, 1934 as applicable to Haryana (for short "1934 Rules") and thereby has also committed carelessness and indiscipline. In the alternative, it is prayed that departmental proceedings during the pendency of criminal proceedings arising out of case F.I.R. No. 380 dated 24.5.2002 registered at Police Station City, Panipat for offences under sections 124-A/153-A of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 of the Police (Incitement of Disaffection) Act, 1922 (for short "1922 Act") and section 4 of the Police Force (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1966 (for short "1966 Act") may be stayed.

(2.) The petitioner was recruited as Police Constable in the year 1992. While the petitioner was posted at Chandni Bagh Police Station, Panipat, a criminal case i.e. case F.I.R. No. 380 dated 24.5.2002 (Annexure P-1) for offences under sections 124-A/153-A of the Indian Penal Code was registered against him as also against one Satbir Chahal on the allegations that he got published a news item in the newspaper "Dainik Tribune" dated 24.5.2002 which news item, it was alleged, tantamounts to inciting and instigating the members of the police force. A copy of the news item dated 24.5.2002 has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. On the same day, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Panipat (respondent No. 3) in terms of his order dated 24.5.2002 (Annexure P- 3) ordered the initiation of a regular departmental inquiry against the petitioner for issuing a press statement by the petitioner in the newspaper without prior approval of the competent authority which was said to be against the provisions of rule 14.44 of 1934 Rules. It is mentioned in the order Annexure P-3 that the act of the official is a grave misconduct and indiscipline on his part being a member of the disciplined force. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Panipat (respondent No. 4) was appointed as Inquiry Officer to hold a regular departmental inquiry on day to day basis. The charge-sheet/brief of allegations dated 27.5.2002 (Annexure P-6) was served on the petitioner by the Deputy superintendent of Police, (City), Panipat (respondent No. 4) along with list of documents and list of witnesses. The petitioner filed his reply dated 28.5.2002 (Annexure P-4) to the charge-sheet Annexure P-6. The petitioner also submitted an application dated 31.12.2002 (Annexure P-5) in response to letter dated 2.12.2002 in the departmental inquiry, regarding list of witnesses in defence and in response to first notice in the departmental inquiry No. 171-5A dated 29.12.2002, wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner wants to produce the witnesses including His Excellency the Governor of Haryana; Chief Minister, Haryana; Chaudhary Bansi Lal, ex-Chief Minister Haryana; Home Secretary Haryana; Director General/Inspector General of Police Haryana; Registrar, Firm and Societies Haryana and other witnesses. The petitioner also gave a brief description for summoning the witnesses. It is stated that the basic ground for assailing the order dated 24.5.2002 (Annexure P-3) and charge-sheet dated 27.5.2002 (Annexure P-6) is that there is no violation of rule 14.44 of 1934 Rules and in the alternative, it is stated that the charges in the departmental inquiry are based on the same allegations as in the criminal case which is pending in the Court and the defence of the petitioner would be leaked in case the departmental proceedings are not stayed.

(3.) Notice of motion was issued and reply on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 was filed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Panipat (respondent No. 3) in which it is stated that an F.I.R. has been registered against the petitioner for offences under sections 124-A/153-A of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 of 1922 Act and section 4 of 1966 Act. The petitioner has also violated the provisions of rule 14.44 of 1934 Rules and therefore, departmental proceedings have been initiated against him. It is also stated that in the criminal proceedings which are pending before the Court and the departmental proceedings pending before the Inquiry Officer, the allegations are different and evidence in both the proceedings is also different. It is thus, submitted in the reply that departmental proceedings as well as criminal proceedings can run simultaneously. It is also stated that there is no complicated question of law involved and, therefore, both the proceedings can continue simultaneously. It is also stated that the approach and objective in the criminal and the departmental proceedings is altogether distinct and different. It is, therefore, prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed.