9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (10) TMI 516X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rruption Act, 1988, at Police Station Vigilance, Ambala. 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 V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urned. 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. 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 con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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:- 14. It would be evident from the above decisions that each of them starts with the indisputable proposition that there is no legal bar for both proceedings to go on simultaneously and then say that in certain situations, it may not be desirable , advisable or appropriate to proceed with the disciplinary enquiry when a criminal case is pending on identical charges. The staying of disciplinary proceedings, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t conclusion. That is the reality in spite of repeated advice and admonitions from this Court and the High Courts. If a criminal case is unduly delayed that may itself be a good ground for going ahead with the disciplinary enquiry even where the disciplinary proceedings are held over at an earlier stage. The interests of administration and good government demand that these proceedings are concluded expeditiously. It must be remembered that interests of administration demand that undesirable elements are thrown out and any charge of misdemeanour is enquired into promptly. The disciplinary proceedings are meant not really to punish the guilty but to keep the administrative machinery unsullied by getting rid of bad elements. The interest of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest of the charged officer that the proceedings are expeditiously concluded. Delay in such cases really works against him. The aforementioned view has been approved in the cases of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., (1999) 3 SCC 679; Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. T. Srinivas, (2004) 7 SCC 442 and State Bank of India v. R.B. Sharma, (2004) 7 SCC 27. In Capt. M. Paul Anthony s case (supra) some of the factors which would govern the issue of staying the departmental proceedings during the pendency of a criminal case, have been summarized in para 22 and the same reads as follows:- 22. (i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M. Paul Anthony s case (supra) and other judgments noticed above, we cannot resist the conclusion that the instant petition lacks merit and is, thus, liable to be dismissed. We are further of the view that departmental proceedings cannot be permitted to wait endlessly till the conclusion of criminal trial, which may take its own time because it would not be in the interest of respondent department that a person like the petitioner, who is charged with serious misdemeanour should be continued in the disciplined force indefinitely which the criminal proceedings are likely to consume. Staying the proceedings at this stage would only serve the interest of the accused. On the basis of the aforementioned factors it is not possible for us to accep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
