ROHTAS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, FARIDABAD AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an Assistant Sub Inspector in the Haryana Police Department. FIR No.21 dated 13.6.2011 stands registered against him under Section 7 read with Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the Act") for alleged criminal offences committed when he was posted as Assistant Sub Inspector at Police Post Chawla Colony, Ballabgarh. A committal order has been passed on 3.10.2011 and he is facing trial on having pleaded not guilty. He has been admitted to bail pending trial.

(2.) Apart from facing trial, the petitioner has been issued a charge-sheet by initiation of departmental proceedings. The charge-sheet has been issued on 11.6.2013. He has made an application before the administrative authority on 28.6.2013 praying that further proceedings in the departmental inquiry be stayed pending trial for offences under Section 7 read with Section 13 of the Act. He has not yet filed a reply to the charge-sheet yet.

(3.) The present petition has been filed with a prayer that a direction be issued to the respondents not to pass final orders during pendency of the criminal case. The submission is that if he files a reply to the charge-sheet, his defence would be revealed which may prejudice the trial. He admits that prosecution evidence in the criminal case is about to conclude and only formal witnesses remain to be examined. The petitioner pleads that in case an order of dismissal is passed against the petitioner in the departmental proceedings and he is acquitted by the trial court, then he would have to initiate another round of litigation which would lead to harassment and wastage of time. He cites Rule 16.3 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 to contend that following judicial acquittal, a police officer shall not be punished departmentally on the same charge or on a different charge upon the evidence cited in the criminal case unless one of the exceptions laid down in the rule is met.