OM PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 16.7.2006 (Annexure P.3) charge-sheeting the petitioner for indulging in corrupt practices. FIR No. 250 dated 25.4.2006 under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1988 at Police State Civil Lines, Hissar has also been registered against the petitioner. He was placed under suspension. A copy of the FIR has also been placed on record as Annexure P.1. The grievance made by the petitioner is that the charge sheet dated 16.7.2006 (Annexure P.3) be quashed against him and a prayer is made that the departmental proceedings be stayed.

(2.) The petitioner has been working as ASI with the respondent state. On account of registration of FIR No. 250 dated 25.4.2006, he was placed under suspension on 1.6.2006 and a regular departmental enquiry was ordered against him. In that regard, a charge sheet was issued on 16.7.2006. The petitioner requested for deferring the departmental enquiry till such time the evidence in criminal trial is complete. The aforementioned facts unequivocally shows that the petitioner is a member of the disciplinary force and have been charged with demand and acceptance of illegal gratification of Rs. 2000/- in a trap case. In the departmental proceedings, the charges are emanating from the same FIR; criminal trial is yet to commence and the petitioner is yet to be charged by the criminal court. Obviously, the list of witnesses in both the proceedings have not yet been issued nor it is possible for this Court to go into the afore-mentioned question as to whether the defense of the petitioner before the Criminal Court would get prejudiced. It is well settled that disciplinary proceedings cannot be stayed as a matter of course. The prejudice to the defence of a delinquent official like the petitioner before the criminal court is only one factor which laced with a number of other factors namely , that the charges must be the same and that the case must involve conflicting question of facts and law. The afore-mentioned view has been taken by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in paras 14 and 15 of the judgement in the case of State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena, 1996 6 SCC 417.

(3.) The aforementioned view has been approved in the cases of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., 1999 3 SCC 679; Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. T. Srinivas, 2004 7 SCC 442 and State Bank of India v. R.B. Sharma, 2004 7 SCC 27. In Capt. M. Paul Anthony's case some of the factors which would govern the issue of staying the departmental proceedings during the pendency of a criminal case, have been summarized in para 22 and the same reads as follows:-