CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6622 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: DECEMBER 20 ,2010 Constable Om Parkash .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Khandelwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Long ago, in the year 2003, the petitioner was awarded punishment of stoppage of five future increments with permanent effect. He has now challenged the said punishment through the present writ petition filed in the year 2010. Charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 11.9.2002. The petitioner gave detailed reply, contending that there was no evidence in support of the allegation. The petitioner was awarded penalty of stoppage of five increments with permanent on 6.2.2003. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6622 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: The petitioner filed an appeal against the same on 2.3.2003, which was dismissed on 18.7.2003. Simultaneously, FIR was also registered against the petitioner on 31.8.2002 under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. Though the petitioner's name did not figure in the FIR, but he was prosecuted and was acquitted on 31.3.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a mercy petition against the departmental punishment on 15.5.2009. The petitioner has also served a legal notice and has now filed the writ petition to impugn the said punishment. In the reply filed, it is disclosed that the petitioner had connived with accused Raj Kumar son of Khushi Ram and another Raj Kumar son of Khem Chand, who had fraudulently extracted `70,000/- from Shamsher Singh with a promise of doubling the money. On the basis of this allegation against the petitioner, he was proceeded against departmentally and was also placed under suspension. A proper enquiry was held against the petitioner and thereafter the punishment of stoppage of five increments with permanent effect was imposed, though the show cause notice issued to the petitioner was for dismissal from service. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also rejected. While opposing the plea that the punishment would amount to double jeopardy or that acquittal should effect the punishment imposed on the petitioner, a reference is made to number of cases decided in this regard. It has long since been held that disciplinary and criminal prosecution can proceed simultaneously. In this regard, reference CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6622 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: can be made to the case of Subhash Chand Vs. State of Haryana and others, (Civil Writ Petition No.3495 of 2010), decided on 18.8.2010, where catena of judgements like Capt.M.Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., 1999 (3) S.C.C. 679, Indian Overseas Bank, Anna Salai and Anr. Vs. P.Ganesan and others, 2008(1) S.C.C. 650, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sarvesh Berry, 2005 (1) SCT 179, State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. R.B.Sharma, 2004 (6) J.T. 361, Bhim Sain, Warder (Under Suspension) Vs. State of Haryana, 1996 (1) S.C.T. 728, Balwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2009 (1) S.C.T. 86, Uttaranchal Road Transport Corpn. And Ors. Vs. Mansaram Nainwal, 2006 (3) SCT 830, Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd. Vs. Kushal Bhan, AIR 1960 SC 806, Jang Bahadur Singh Vs. Baij Nath Tiwari, AIR 1969 SC 30, Nelson Motis Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 1981, State of Rajasthan Vs. B.K.Meena and others, 1996 (6) SCC 417, Tata Oil Mills Company Ltd. Vs. Workmen, AIR 1965 SC 155 and Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Mohd. Yousuf Miyan, 1997 (2) SCC 699, have also been noted in this regard. Even if the petitioner was to make any grievance in this regard, he should have done so when the departmental proceedings were initiated against him, which were brought to finality in the year 2003. The departmental action was initiated against the petitioner for helping the accused person whereas the criminal proceedings appear to for conspiring with the accused person, who had deceived the complainant. Acquittal in a criminal case, thus, would not have any CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6622 OF 2010 :{ 4 }: effect on the punishment imposed on the petitioner, which was after following due procedure and on the basis of a finding returned by the Enquiry Officer on examination of witnesses. The petitioner can not be permitted to seek re-opening the issues at this belated stage. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. December 20,2010 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE