RANBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 29.6.2006 (P -2) passed by Respondent No. 3, whereby he has ordered holding of regular departmental enquiry against the petitioner and Deputy Superintendent of Police, Head Quarters, Rohtak has been appointed as Enquiry Officer. Challenge has also been made to the charge -sheet dated 5.7.2006 (P -3) A further prayer has been made for directing the respondents to stay the departmental proceedings against the petitioner during the pendency of criminal trial in case FIR No. 21, dated 2.6.2006, registered under Section 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Rohtak.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner joined as a Constable in the respondent Police Department and subsequently he was promoted as Head Constable. While he was posted as Head Constable (I.O.) at Police Post Model Town Rohtak, on the basis of a complaint made by one Shri Amit Lamba son of Shri Satyavir Singh, resident of Kothi No. 36 -R, Model Town, Rohtak, to the Superintendent of Police, State Vigilance Bureau, Rohtak, a trap was laid and the petitioner was caught red handed while taking a bribe of Rs. 2000/ - from the complainant on 2.6.2006 and FIR No. 21, dated 2.6.2006, under Section 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has been registered against him at Police Station State Vigilance Bureau, Rohtak. The petitioner was placed under suspension and vide order dated 29.6.2006 Respondent No. 3 ordered for holding regular departmental enquiry against him and also appointed the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Headquarters), Rohtak, as Enquiry Officer (P -2). Subsequently, a charge -sheet dated 5.7.2006 has also been issued (P -3). It is appropriate to mention here that criminal trial against the petitioner is yet to commence. On 12.8.2006, the petitioner made a representation to the Enquiry Officer for staying the departmental proceedings till the decision of criminal case.

(3.) THE aforementioned facts unequivocally show that the petitioner, who is a member of a disciplined force, has been charged with for demand and acceptance of illegal gratification in a trap case. The criminal trial is yet to commence and the officer is yet to be charged by the criminal Court. When such like charges are levelled in a departmental proceeding then it is not easy to conclude that the defence of the petitioner is likely to be prejudiced merely because he may have to disclose those facts which he may like to disclose before the criminal Court. Similarly, charge of misconduct can also be proved as it would not be required of him to disclose his defence. It is trite to observe that the standard of proof in both the proceedings in any case is entirely different.