MOHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN FIR was lodged against the petitioner under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Copy of the FIR, registered against the petitioner under the aforesaid Act, is, annexed with this writ petition, as, Annexure PB. On the score of the FIR, having come to be registered against the petitioner comprised, in, Annexure PB, the petitioner was placed under suspension, under orders, comprised in Annexure PC. A departmental inquiry was ordered to be initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner avers in the writ petition, that the departmental inquiry initiated against him vide Annexure PC & PD, may kindly be quashed. It is further prayed by the petitioner that the departmental inquiry may kindly be stayed till the culmination of the criminal case. The petitioner averred that the criminal proceedings, as well, as, the departmental inquiry initiated against the petitioner, for his alleged misconduct, arising from the lodging of FIR against him, comprised in Annexure PB, cannot, when both the criminal trial and the departmental inquiry as has been initiated against him, for his purported misconduct, are, anvilled on the very same incident and there is commonality of witnesses to be examined in both, the proceedings, sequelly, proceed simultaneously. Therefore, it is prayed in the writ petition that the departmental inquiry initiated against the petitioner, be adjourned sine -die, till the culmination of the criminal trial/proceedings.

(2.) THE respondents filed reply to the writ petition averring that the departmental inquiry initiated against the petitioner has been initiated and is being conducted in accordance with the provisions laid down, in, the Punjab Police Rules 16.24, as, applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh. It is further contended, that, the petitioner was given an adequate opportunity to defend himself during the course of the departmental inquiry. It is also contended that there is no legal bar against the departmental inquiry, as well, as, the criminal proceedings taking place simultaneously, as both have distinct and variant objectives.

(3.) SINCE in the citation, aforesaid, it has been contemplated that the disciplinary proceeding, cannot be and should not be, as a matter of course, stayed till, the conclusion of the trial and that the departmental proceedings, be, stayed, till, the conclusion of the criminal trial, only, in the event of the delinquent -accused demonstrating by material placed on record that, in, case the departmental inquiry concludes or terminates, before termination of the criminal trial, he would, in the face of commonality of witnesses/evidence, in both the cases, be prejudiced. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the delinquent accused -petitioner, to, place on record such cogent evidence/material evincing the fact that there would be palpable, manifest and obvious, prejudice caused to the him, in, case the criminal trial, is, permitted to proceed simultaneously with the departmental inquiry. However, no convincing, hard and satisfactory material has been placed on record by the accused/delinquent/petitioner demonstrative of, palpable or manifest prejudice ensuing to him, in, case, both, the proceedings are permitted to proceed simultaneously. When both have different objectives and the exception, to both proceeding being in motion simultaneously, being of demonstrative prejudice ensuing to the petitioner/delinquent, in, case departmental inquiry, is, not stalled or stayed by the Courts of law, till the conclusion of the criminal trial. For obviation of such ensueable prejudice, hence, accruable to the petitioner, the substantiation by the petitioner -delinquent -accused, of, such accruable prejudice to him, was imperative. It having remained unsubstantiated, the said exception, to, the rule of both proceedings going on simultaneously remain fortifyingly un -established. Rather there is merely being an averment on the part of the petitioner -accused -delinquent that given the commonality of witnesses in both proceedings, his defence would be prejudiced, which comprises neither a hard nor a substantial material for nurturing, an inference of conclusive prejudice, accruing, to, the petitioner. Moreover, the above purported accruable prejudice, does, not appear to be realistic, rather, it appears to be illusory, in, the face of the fact that, he, would be given even a fair chance to cross examine the witnesses on the part of the respondents, in, both, the departmental inquiry and the criminal proceeding. Hence, the apprehension, is, purportedly misleading, besides, illusory. Even otherwise, given the fact when the acid determinant gauge, for, construing whether the petitioner would be prejudiced, in, the departmental inquiry, as well, as, in the criminal proceedings being in motion simultaneously, is of both being harboured and hinged upon complex question of law and fact. However, the said sine -qua -non remains wholly un -established. The unavailability of the said, sine -qua -non in the instant case, for concluding, hence, that, as such, the petitioner -delinquent -accused, is, likely to be prejudiced in the criminal proceedings has remained unfortified. The reason for so inferring is that there, is, no iota of an averment, in, the writ petition comprising the fact that, the, case of the department/prosecution against the petitioner in the criminal proceedings and the departmental inquiry, is, anvilled upon clearly delineated complicated questions of facts and law. Hence, only when on availability whereof, Courts, would be constrained to stay departmental proceedings, till, the conclusion of the criminal trial. Obviously for non -fortification/non -substantiation of the aforesaid indispensable requirement, for staying departmental proceedings till the conclusion of criminal trial, it, can be concluded, that, the ground for construing, whether prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, in, the, criminal proceeding, in case, they are permitted to proceed simultaneously with the departmental inquiry, also, stands reinforcingly un -established. As a result, it can only be concluded that the averments comprised in the writ petition are illusory. Rather when the departmental inquiry has been contended in the reply of the respondent to be its being concluded in accordance with law, which contention remains un -denounced, during the course of the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, considering the validity of initiation of departmental inquiry against the petitioner, as, also its proceedings against the accused/delinquent in accordance with apposite un -impeached rules. Consequently, when petitioner/delinquent would have sufficient, adequate and fair opportunity to cross -examine the witnesses of the respondent -department, in the departmental inquiry. As a sequel, therefore, hence, with the availability of fair opportunity to the petitioner to cross -examine the witnesses of the respondent in both the departmental inquiry, as, well as in the criminal trial overcomes, as well as also dispels the purported illusory accrued prejudice, to, the petitioner. With the inference of no prejudice having been demonstrated to be accruable, to the petitioner in both the proceedings continuing or being afoot simultaneously against the petitioner/accused/delinquent, as such, this court, is, of the view that, besides with the sine -qua -non aforesaid lacking, in as much, as there being no demonstrative material evincing the existence, of, complex question of law inherent, in, the case of the respondent, in both, the department inquiry and in the criminal proceedings, constrains this court, to, hence, dismiss the writ petition. However, it is ordered that the State of Himachal Pradesh shall, within four months, conclude the departmental inquiry against the accused/delinquent/petitioner. In addition, it is also thought necessary, that, the trial Court concerned be directed to ensure, that, the criminal proceedings are also concluded within four months A copy of this order be also sent to the trial Court, for, ensuring its compliance qua the directions issued to it.