A S I JAIRAJ Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing Summary of Allegations dated 16.8.2006 along with list of prosecution witnesses (P-1). An alternative prayer has also been made for directing the respondents to stay the departmental inquiry proceedings during the pendency of criminal trial in case FIR No. 23, dated 1.6.2006, registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, at Police Station State Vigilance Bureau, Ambala Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the respondent Police Department as Constable on 25.3.1977 and promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector on 23.12.2002. A complaint was made by one Ram Narayan s/o Bachna Lal against the petitioner while he was posted as Incharge Police Post, Brahmsarovar (District Kurukshetra) for demand of bribe for allowing the complainant to park his three-wheelers at Brahmsarovar. A raid was conducted by the officials of the State Vigilance Bureau and Rs. 200/- were recovered from the pocket of one subordinate Constable Kaptan Singh, No. 229/KKT. Consequently, case FIR No. 23, dated 1.6.2006, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered at Police Station State Vigilance Bureau, Ambala, against the petitioner as well as Constable Kaptan Singh. The respondents have initiated a departmental inquiry on the same allegations as have been mentioned in the aforementioned FIR and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pehowa has been appointed as an Enquiry Officer, who has issued a summary of allegations along with list of witnesses and list of documents to the petitioner on 16.8.2006 (P-1).

(2.) The aforementioned facts un-equivocally shows that the petitioner is a member of the disciplinary force and 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.

(3.) The law on the aforementioned issue is also well settled, inasmuch as, it has been repeatedly held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court that disciplinary proceedings should not be stayed as a matter of course. The prejudice to the defence of a delinquent officer before the criminal Court is only one factor which is laced with a number of other factors, namely, that the charges must be the same and the case must involve complicated questions of law and facts. The aforementioned view has been taken by their Lordships' in para 14 and 15 of the judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena (1996) 6 SCC 417, which reads as under: