PREM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing charge sheet/order dated 18.2.2006 (P-2). A further prayer has been made for directing the respondents to stay the departmental inquiry proceedings during the pendency of criminal trial in case FIR No. 2, dated 27.1.2006, registered under Section 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, at Police Station Vigilance, Ambala.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined as Constable on 17.10.1985 and promoted as Head Constable on 25.9.1999. On 27.1.2006, the aforementioned FIR was registered against the petitioner on the basis of a complaint made by Smt. Babli wife of Nimbu Ram, resident of Village Dalip Garh, Ambala Cantt., alleging that the petitioner has demanded a bribe of Rs. 30,000/- for returning their household articles out of which Rs. 10,000/- were paid on 16.12.2005 and the other amount of Rs. 10,000/- on 17.12.2005 and remaining amount of Rs. 10,000/- was to be paid when she made a complaint to the Vigilance Bureau. On the basis of the aforementioned complaint the police of State Vigilance Bureau, Haryana, laid a trap and caught the petitioner red handed and above mentioned FIR has been registered against him. Vide order dated 18.2.2006 (P-2) a charge sheet has been issued and departmental proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner. On 2.5.2006, the petitioner made a representation to the Inquiry Officer for staying the departmental proceedings till the decision of the criminal case (P- 3). Thereafter, the petitioner filed seeking the same relief which has been sought in the present writ petition. We had dismissed the said writ petition vide our order dated 29.5.2006, being premature as no charges were framed by the Departmental Authority although charges were framed by the Criminal Court. After dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner made a representation dated 20.6.2006 to the Inquiry Officer for supply of charge sheet (P-4). The petitioner has again filed the instant petition by asserting that without deciding his representation the Inquiry Officer has issued summons/letter dated 20.6.2006 directing him to appear in the departmental inquiry on 22.6.2006. On that date the petitioner appeared before the Inquiry Officer and presented copy of the judgment/order dated 29.5.2006 passed by us in C.W.P. No. 8496 of 2006 and requested to supply the charge sheet. It is alleged that the Inquiry Officer refused to receive the same and told that the order dated 18.2.2006 (P-2) is the charge sheet. The case was then adjourned. The Inquiry Officer again issued summons/letter dated 23/25.6.2006 to the petitioner to appear before him on 26.6.2006 (P-7). It has further been alleged that on 26.6.2006 the petitioner appeared before the Inquiry Officer and tried to procure the charge sheet as well as to deliver judgment/orders of this Court but in vein. No proceedings could take place on 26.6.2006, inasmuch as, the witness did not appear on that day.

(3.) In the written statement the stand taken is that the stage of charge sheet will come after recording of evidence of all PWs in departmental proceedings and at this stage only list of allegations is there, therefore, there was no question of supplying a copy of charge sheet as claimed and the Inquiry Officer is conducting the inquiry as per Rules. It has further been asserted that compliance of the orders passed by us in the instant petition, dated 7.7.2006, have been made. It is appropriate to mention that while issuing Notice of Motion, we had directed that the Inquiry Officer was to defer the proceedings to a date beyond August 29, 2006. Necessity of passing the above mentioned direction was felt because the criminal case before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala City, was fixed for 29.8.2006.