ANAND BAKSHI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a civil writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dtd. 31/8/2023 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra-respondent no.2 whereby departmental enquiry against the petitioner has been ordered by holding day to day proceedings.

(2.) The brief facts of the present case, as emanates from the averments made in the petition and also the documents which have been annexed with the present petition, are that the petitioner is an employee in Haryana Police Department and is working on the post of Exemptee Assistant Sub Inspector (EASI) and was posted at Kurukshetra Highway as Incharge of Bolero no.3 and FIR no.22 dtd. 30/8/2023 was registered against the petitioner by the District Anti Corruption Bureau Haryana at Police Station ACB, Ambala under Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the allegation that one Sahib Singh had made a complaint that he was doing work of providing commercial vehicles to the businessmen from transporters and he used to take commission for providing the said vehicles and that on 25/8/2023 at night, a vehicle which was taken on rent from the transporters by the complainant and was loaded with liquor, was stopped on the Pipli Highway, District Kurukshetra by the PCR Police deputed on the road and the driver of the said vehicle informed the complainant about the same and thereafter, the complainant sent his friend Sumit son of Ranbir to Kurukshetra where the Incharge of PCR-3 met him and told him that his name was Anand (petitioner) and the petitioner demanded Rs.15,000.00 as bribe to set the vehicle free and that Sumit, the friend of the complainant, used his UPI from his mobile at Jai Filling Station, Kurukshetra and after getting hard cash, handed over bribe money to the PCR Incharge (petitioner). It is further alleged in the complaint that on the day of the complaint, the complainant and his friend Sumit were going to Ambala for personal work but they stopped at Prince Dhaba and the PCR Incharge (petitioner) met the complainant and asked him to give Rs.30,000.00 as bribe for getting his overloaded vehicles pass through Highway and insisted on payment of the said bribe and since the complainant did not wish to give the said bribe, thus, he filed the complaint, on the basis of which, the FIR was registered. In the FIR, reference was made to the raid conducted and it is not in dispute before this Court that as per the case of the prosecution, petitioner was caught red handed while accepting bribe of Rs.30,000.00. The Investigation in the FIR is pending and the report under Sec. 173 Cr.P.C. has not been submitted as yet. It is further the case of the petitioner that vide order dtd. 31/8/2023 (Annexure P-3), the Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra has initiated departmental enquiry against the petitioner and has also placed the petitioner under suspension and the said departmental enquiry has been entrusted to the DSP, Kurukshetra. The notice of accusation (Annexure P-4) has been served upon the petitioner with respect to initiating the departmental proceedings against the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that his limited prayer in the present petition is that the common witnesses in the departmental proceedings and the FIR be not examined in the departmental proceedings till the time they are examined in the criminal case as their examination would cause prejudice to the petitioner, inasmuch as in case the said witnesses are examined in the departmental proceedings then the defence of the petitioner would be disclosed while cross-examining the said witnesses in the departmental proceedings. In support of the said argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as " Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.", reported as 1999(3) SCC 679. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred to a list (Annexure P-5) to show that the witnesses from serial no. 6 to 9 in the departmental proceedings would be the common witnesses inasmuch as it is certain that the said witnesses would also be made as witnesses in the criminal proceedings although report under Sec. 173 Cr.P.C. has not been submitted in the Court till date.