ASHWANI KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN FIR was lodged against the petitioner under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On the score of the FIR having come to be registered against the petitioner, he was placed under suspension and a departmental inquiry was ordered to be initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner avers that if the departmental inquiry is continued at this stage, defence of the petitioner in the criminal trial would be badly prejudiced and the same would cause immense loss and harm to the petitioner, as such, the petitioner prays for following relief: -

(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 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.) FOR adjudging as well as gauging the sinew of the legal contention as advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that given the commonality of witnesses in both the criminal trial as well as the departmental inquiry, there is likelihood of his being subjected to prejudice. Hence, there is a concomitant necessity enjoined upon this Court to stay the departmental inquiry, it is necessary to advert to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited Vs. Girish V. and others : (2014) 3 SCC 636, which has encapsulated the entire legal position for determining the circumstances and set of facts whereby the Courts of law would be constrained to lean towards staying departmental proceedings till the conclusion of criminal trial against the petitioner. In the judgment aforesaid it has been authoritatively spelt out that there cannot be any hardened prescriptive formula nor any rigid inflexible determinant for delineating the facts and circumstances for weaning the Courts of law to order the staying of departmental inquiry till the conclusion of the criminal trial against the person aggrieved, by theirs being launched against the delinquent/accused. However, certain broad principles have been spelt out. It has been emphatically stated that both, the launching of criminal proceedings as well as the initiation of departmental inquiry against the accused/delinquent have different purposes inasmuch, as a criminal prosecution is launched for violation of duty by the offender to society whereas the departmental inquiry is meant for maintaining discipline and efficiency in service. Both have been emphasized to be meant to serve diverse and different purposes. Further more, it is emphasized in para 10 of the citation which has been extracted hereinafter that both the proceedings can proceed simultaneously and the only valid ground for claiming stay of the departmental inquiry till the conclusion of the criminal trial would be likelihood of ensuing of prejudice to the accused/delinquent in case the criminal proceedings are not stayed. However, even the said ground is available only where apparent and demonsratable complex question of facts and law palpably exist. Paragraph 10 of the judgment aforesaid, is extracted hereinafter: -