High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:122232 Reserved on 01.05.2023 Delivered on 31.05.2023 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4025 of 2023 Petitioner :- Haider Ali Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vatsala,Shabeena Begum Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J. 1 Heard Ms. Shabeena Begum, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sandeep Singh, learned Brief Holder for the State-respondents. 2. By means of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for writ of certiorari quashing of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him under Rule 14 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officer of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner while posted at Police Station Sureri, District Jaunpur was entrusted with the investigation of Case of Crime No.65 of 2022 Under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427 and 452 I.P.C. 4. It appears that one Ambika Pandey who was accused in the said case crime submitted a complaint that the petitioner is demanding Rs. 10,000/- as a bribe for not implicating the nephew of the complainant Mahatim Pandey in the said crime. On the complaint of Ambika Pandey, the police department laid a trap and the petitioner was caught red handed for taking a bribe on 31.05.2022 at about 16.55 p.m., the petitioner was taken into custody immediately for an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 5. As the conduct of the petitioner was of unbecoming of a government servant, the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 01.06.2022 passed by Superintendent of Police and a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner has been instituted. The petitioner was later on enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 06.01.2023, copy of bail is appended as Annexure No.6 to 1 the writ petititon. Later on, the police filed charge sheet No. 8 of 2022 in Case Crime No.166 of 2022 on 27.07.2022. 6. The petitioner was also issued a charge sheet in disciplinary proceeding on 07.01.2023 enclosing list of witnesses relied upon by the department in the disciplinary proceeding. 7. The challenge against the charge sheet in disciplinary proceeding has been laid by the petitioner on the ground that as the criminal proceeding and departmental proceeding have been initiated on the same charge, therefore, the departmental proceeding may be stayed till the criminal proceeding is concluded inasmuch as if the departmental proceeding is allowed to be continued, the same shall prejudice the criminal trial of the petitioner as the petitioner will have to disclose the defence in the departmental proceeding which he wants to take in the criminal proceeding. 8.
Legal Reasoning
pendency of criminal proceeding. The judgment of this Court in the case of Sanjay Rai (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is of no help to her inasmuch as in the said case, the Court was dealing with an issue where the charges in the criminal proceeding as well as the disciplinary were similar. In such backdrop, this Court held that the disciplinary proceeding cannot continue. 16. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the disciplinary proceeding on the ground that continuance of the disciplinary proceeding would prejudice the criminal trial against the
Arguments
It is contended that the State Government has issued the Government Order dated 01.07.1993 clarifying that in respect to the police personnel governed by Section 7 of the Police Act, 1868, the departmental proceeding cannot be carried on when the criminal case is pending on the same set of facts against the employee. In support of the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Sanjay Rai Vs. State of U.P (Service Single No.936 of 2015) decided on 28.09.2016. 9. Per contra, learned brief holder would contend that the disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner on account of the fact that the petitioner was caught red handed while taking a bribe and as such the conduct of the petitioner is of unbecoming of a government servant and has tarnished the reputation of the police department. Thus, it is evident that the charge in the disciplinary proceeding and criminal proceeding are different and there is no bar that the criminal proceeding and disciplinary proceeding cannot continue simultaneously. Accordingly, it is contended that the contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived and deserves to be rejected. 2 10. I have heard rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 11. Though the petitioner states that a false trap has been laid against the petitioner and he has been falsely implicated in Case Crime No.166 of 2022, but the fact that he was arrested in a trap laid by the Anti Corruption team while taking a bribe of Rs.10,000/- is not denied. The charge in the criminal case levelled against the petitioner reads as under:- “ श्रीमान् जी, बयान वादी, निनवेदन हኍᮾ नि(cid:15) मु 0 बयाना砞訌 गवाहान, उपरोक्砞訌 (cid:15)ी निववेचना मु䂶劼 निनरी्ቌ(cid:15) (cid:15)े पुनि(cid:25)स अधी्ቌ(cid:15) मु०निन०सं० उ०प्र० (cid:25)खनउ (cid:15)े आदेश से प्राप्砞訌 हु ईቼ┆ 砞訌मामी निववेचना, निनरी्ቌ㝘䦒 घटना स्थ(cid:25) बरामद निरश्व砞訌ी नोट एवं अन्य अनि/(cid:25)ेखीय सा्ቌय䀗䂦 से अनि/युक्砞訌 नं 0 3 (cid:15)े निवरू्ቍ जुम धारा 7 /्रनिन0 अनिध0 1988 यथा संशोनिध砞訌 /्र 0 निन0 अनिध0 2018 (cid:15)ा अपराध बखूबी सानिब砞訌 हኍᮾቼ┆ अ砞訌硋鋮 आरोपी श्री हኍᮾदर अ(cid:25)ी न्याया(cid:25)य जनिरए आरोप प砞訌्र न्याया(cid:25)य चा(cid:25)ान नि(cid:15)या जा रहा हኍᮾቼ┆ गवाह सबू砞訌 砞訌(cid:25)ब (cid:15)र दनि56砞訌 (cid:15)रने (cid:15)ी (cid:15)ृ पा (cid:15)रें ቼ┆" 12. The charge levelled against the petitioner in charge sheet dated 07.01.2023 is as under:- धारा 3/25 समय 08.09 जब आप थाना सुरे री जनपद जौनपुर में निनयुक्砞訌 थे 砞訌ो निदनां(cid:15) 31.05.2022 “ बजे पर थाना सुरे री पर पंजी(cid:15)ृ 砞訌 मु 0 अ 0 सं0 (cid:15)ो र 0 नं0 14 69/2022 आ鏖껝स; एक्ट से स鏖껝बनिन्ध砞訌 मा(cid:25) मु(cid:15)दमा砞訌ी (cid:25)े(cid:15)र अनि/योजन स्वी(cid:15)ृ नि砞訌 हे砞訌ु (cid:15)ाया;(cid:25)य निज(cid:25)ानिध(cid:15)ारी जौनपुर रवाना थेቼ┆ निश(cid:15)ाय砞訌(cid:15)砞訌ा; महानि砞訌म पा56ेय निन०ग्रा० (cid:15)ठवनि砞訌या थाना सुरे री जौनपुर से मु(cid:15)दें में नाम निन(cid:15)ा(cid:25)ने नि(cid:25)ए रू0 10,000/- निरश्व砞訌 (cid:25)े砞訌े हु ए ए5टी (cid:15)रे प्सन टीम वारा㝘䦒सी ्ቛारा आप(cid:15)ो थाना मनि6याहू ्ቌे砞訌्र से निगरफ्砞訌ार नि(cid:15)या गया, निजस(cid:15)े स鏖껝बन्ध में एन्टी (cid:15)रे प्सन वारा㝘䦒सी ट्रኍᮾ प टीम (cid:15)ी प्र/ारी संध्या (cid:15)ो थाना मनि6याहू पर मु0 अ 0 सं0 166 / निसंह ्ቛारा निदनां(cid:15) 31.05.2022 2022 (cid:15)ा अनि/योग पंजी(cid:15)ृ 砞訌 (cid:15)राया गया एवं आप(cid:15)े निवरू्ቍ निवनिध(cid:15) (cid:15)ाय;वाही (cid:15)र砞訌े हु ए जे(cid:25) /ेजा गयाቼ┆ वनिरष्ठ पुनि(cid:25)स अधी्ቌ(cid:15) जौनपुर (cid:15)े आदेश संख्या न -26/2022 निदनां(cid:15) 01.06.2022 (cid:15)े ्ቛारा आप(cid:15)ो निन(cid:25)नि鏖껝ब砞訌 नि(cid:15)या गयाቼ┆ आप(cid:15)ो यह (cid:15)ृ त्य पुनि(cid:25)स निव/ाग (cid:15)ी गनिरमा, निजस(cid:15)े फ(cid:25)स्वरूप आप(cid:15)ो प्रारनि鏖껝/(cid:15) जांच से दोषी पाया गया हኍᮾቼ┆" छनिव (cid:15)े प्रनि砞訌(cid:15)ू (cid:25) पाया गया हኍᮾ, /्र०निन० अनिध0 धारा 07 13. Now from the reading of the charges levelled against the petitioner in the criminal proceeding & disciplinary proceeding, it is evident that the charge levelled against the petitioner in the criminal proceedings is on the basis of the investigation and evidence in criminal case that the offence against the petitioner under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is established whereas the charge in the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner is that the petitioner was arrested while taking a bribe of Rs. 10,000/- and such conduct of the petitioner has lowered the image of the 3 department, and that the conduct of the petitioner is of unbecoming of government servant. 14. The law on the point that the criminal proceeding and disciplinary proceeding can go simultaneously is settled as the object and purpose of criminal proceeding and disciplinary proceeding are different and they operate in different fields. In the disciplinary proceeding, the rule of preponderance of probability applies whereas in the criminal proceeding, the principle of standard of prove beyond reasonable doubt is applicable. The nature of evidence in both criminal proceeding and disciplinary proceeding are different. 15. In the instant case, the charge against the petitioner in criminal case is on the basis of material and evidence collected by the investigating agency, that offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is established. Whereas the disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner on account of the fact that he was arrested in a trap laid by the Anti Corruption Team for taking a bribe which conduct of the petitioner is of unbecoming of a government servant and has lowered the image of the department. Thus, it is evident that the scope of inquiry with respect to charge in the criminal proceeding and departmental proceeding are totally different and has no bearing with each other. As the scope of criminal proceeding and disciplinary proceeding are different, therefore, merely because all witnesses in criminal proceeding and disciplinary proceeding are same cannot be a ground to install the disciplinary proceeding during the
Decision
petitioner, but this Court does not find any averment in the writ petition as to 4 how the continuance of disciplinary proceeding shall prejudice the criminal proceeding lodged against the petitioner. In the absence of any pleading as to how continuance of disciplinary proceeding shall prejudice the criminal trial, no case for grant of relief prayed for in the writ petition is made out. 17. In such view of the fact, the writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Order Date :- 31.05.2023 R.S. Tiwari Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 5