ASHOK KUMAR 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 the impugned order dtd. 5/1/2022 (Annexure P-2) vide which the Superintendent of Police, Jind, has initiated departmental enquiry against the petitioner during the pendency of trial in FIR no.362 dtd. 4/12/2021 registered under Ss. 34, 376(2), 377, 406, 506 IPC at Police Station Julana, District Jind. Challenge is also laid to summary of allegations dtd. 27/10/2022 (Annexure P-3) served by the Inquiry Officer-cum-Deputy Superintendent of Police, City Jind.

(2.) Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner was enrolled in the Police Department on 19/11/2003 as a Constable and was appointed as an Assistant Sub Inspector on 15/8/2019. FIR no.362 dtd. 4/12/2021 under Ss. 34, 376(2), 377, 406, 506 IPC was registered on the complaint of M. (name is not being disclosed) on the allegations that the petitioner had forcibly developed physical relations with her and used to call her and used to forcefully enter her house at night and used to rape her without her consent and also mislead her by stating that he would marry her and had taken a total of Rs.9,35,000.00 on different occasions from her and that he had threatened to defame her and kill her and in June, 2021, the petitioner married another girl by deceiving the complainant and has also been regularly threatening the complainant with serious consequences and that the complainant had recordings of the same in whatsapp chat and also had photographs regarding the same.

(3.) Although the report under Sec. 173 Cr.P.C. has been filed and even charges have been framed, neither the report under Sec. 173 Cr.P.C. has been annexed nor the order of framing of charges has been annexed. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and vide order dtd. 5/1/2022 (Annexure P-2), the Superintendent of Police had suspended the petitioner and had directed the DSP, Jind to conduct a regular departmental enquiry by holding day to day proceedings. The summary of allegations (Annexure P-3) has also been issued against the petitioner in which it has been stated that the petitioner is accused of having committed rape and sexual exploitation, blackmailing and embezzlement of money and extending threats to kill the complainant. In the said summary of allegations, it has also been stated that the complainant had got her statement recorded under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. and even the pen drive of pictures as well as the audio recording of the conversation has also been given to the police and it has been stated that the petitioner by doing the above said act, has committed an act of grave indiscipline and tarnished the image of the police department before the people. This Court has been informed that out of 10 witnesses in the departmental proceedings, 7 witnesses have been examined including the complainant and in the criminal proceedings, out of 19 witnesses, 6 witnesses including the complainant have been examined. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case there are 3 common witnesses out of which 1 common witness has been examined and has prayed that till the examination of the said common witnesses does not take place in the criminal case, the departmental proceedings be kept in abeyance inasmuch as if the said witnesses are examined in the departmental proceedings, then the defence of the petitioner/accused would be disclosed and the same would cause prejudice to the petitioner in the criminal case. In support of his arguments, 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.