GARIB DASS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS have approached this Court praying for quashing of the details of allegations issued to them, copies of which have been appended as Annexures P -10 to P -17, charge -sheet (Annexures P -23 to P -30) and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the ground that the incident is common, out of which the allegations have been culled out for which criminal cases have also been registered which are pending trial. Prayer has also been made for staying the departmental proceedings during the pendency of the criminal trial. Counsel for the petitioners contends that it came to light that some of the employees of District Police Office, S.B.S. Nagar, Accounts Branch, in connivance with the Treasury Officer, S.B.S. Nagar, had embezzled crores of rupees from the General Provident Fund of the police officials. The case is of a very serious nature. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division, Nawanshahr was directed by the Sr. Superintendent of Police, to conduct preliminary investigation in this case so that the truth may come to light and the detailed report be submitted to him regarding the officials and employees involved in the case. It was also ordered that if any embezzlement is found to have been committed, the period thereof be also highlighted therein.

(2.) ON an enquiry conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (D), S.B.S. Nagar, it came to light that Head Constable Satwinder Kumar, Head Constable Tirath Singh, Head Constable Gurdeep Singh, Head Constable Lal Chand -petitioner No. 3 (Cashier), who were deputed in District Jalandhar, in connivance with the employees of the Treasury Office, Nawanshahr, under a planned conspiracy, by forging numbers and names of the police officers withdrew the amount of General Provident Fund under these names and numbers, prepared forged document and put forged signatures of the concerned Authority on these forged documents, took these forged bills to the Treasury Office by hand. One Narinder Kumar Babbar, employee of the Treasury Office used to issue cheque in respect of these bills and handed over the same to them which were got encashed by these police officials from the State Bank of India, Nawanshahr and they distributed the amount withdrawn amongst themselves. Thereafter, S.I. Garib Dass (petitioner No. 1), Head Constable Charanjit Ram (petitioner No. 3), Head Constable Kamal Kumar (petitioner No. 2) came to know about this embezzlement and they also joined the earlier mentioned police officials and started getting share of the embezzled money. In this way, an amount of Rs. 1,40,74,350/ - was withdrawn from the Treasury. But later on, when these employees came to know that the fraud has come to the notice of the Department, they collected the amount and deposited it back in the State Bank of India. This amount relates to the period for the years 2006 to 2009. On the basis of this enquiry report, FIR No. 31 (Annexure P -6) dated 7.5.2012 Police Station City S.B.S. Nagar, stands registered. Another FIR No. 56 (Annexure P -7) dated 22.6.2012 stands registered in Police Station City S.B.S. Nagar against the petitioners and others, according to which the amount involved in the fraud is Rs. 9,75,00,000/ -. The allegations against the petitioners by and large are the same as in FIR No. 31. On the basis of these FIRs, petitioners were placed under suspension. After investigation, the challans, copies of which have been appended as Annexures P -8 and P -9, stand submitted in the Competent Court. Without waiting for the outcome of the criminal case, a list of allegations along with the list of witnesses has been served upon the petitioners, copies of which have been appended as Annexures P -10 to P -17, which reveals that the charges are with regard to the same incident and the witnesses are also almost the same. The witnesses in the departmental proceedings are also witnesses in the criminal case; rather there are much more witnesses to be examined in the criminal Court than in the departmental proceedings and further evidential circumstances are also the same. Charge -sheets have also been issued to the petitioners, copies of which have been appended as (Annexures P -23 to P -30), where again the charges and the basis for the charges are the same. On the basis of these factual assertions, counsel for the petitioners submits that the departmental enquiry should be stayed by the respondents till the conclusion of the criminal trial as the petitioners would be prejudiced in the criminal case, which is pending against them, by disclosing their defence in the departmental enquiry, which is continuing against them. He contends that the disciplinary proceedings continuing against the petitioners deserve to be kept in abeyance till the conclusion of the criminal trial and in support of this contention, he places reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Kuskeshwar v. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and others, : A.I.R. 1988 Supreme Court 2118, Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another, : 1999(2) S.L.R. 338 and G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat and another, : A.I.R. 2006 S.C. 2129 : (2006) 5 S.C.C. 446 : 2006 (3) R.S.J. 554.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners and with his assistance have gone through the records of the case.