IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1971 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 20.10.2011. HC Sandeep Kumar --Appellant Versus State of Haryana & another --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA. Present:- Mr. Vikas Kuthiala, Advocate for the appellant. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) This L.P.A is directed against the judgement dated 30.9.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No.18567 of 2011 (O&M). The appellant before us is a Head Constable in the Police Department of the State of Haryana. It is admitted case of the appellant that he developed relations with one Constable Nirmala serving in the Police Department of Haryana at Rohtak. A complaint was lodged by said Constable Nirmala to the Inspector General of Police, Haryana on 25.5.2011 that the appellant developed physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage, however, later on the appellant married another girl. On the complaint of Constable Nirmala, FIR No.330 dated 25.5.2011 was registered against the appellant for commission of an offence under Section 376 I.P.C. The appellant, however, was granted anticipatory bail. Simultaneously the departmental proceedings were initiated against the appellant. Appellant, accordingly, filed a writ petition, referred to herein above before this Court challenging the departmental action primarily on the ground that on the same set of allegations and evidence a criminal case LPA No. 1971 of 2011(O&M) -2- is already pending against him. The appellant has thus prayed for the stay of the departmental proceedings initiated against him. Learned Single Judge on consideration of the plea of the appellant dismissed the writ petition vide the impugned judgement holding that the departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings even on the same set of allegations can co-exist. It is against the aforesaid judgement that the appellant has come before us. Notice of motion. Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Addl. A.G., Haryana has been asked to accept notice on behalf of respondents-State. With the concurrence of learned counsel for the parties, this appeal is being disposed of at the motion stage itself. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The moot question involved in the present appeal is whether criminal and departmental proceedings can run concurrently on the same set of allegations. Learned Single Judge has referred to the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court titled as Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. reported as 1999 SCC 679, wherein it has been opined that both the proceedings can simultaneously co-exist even on the same set of allegations. This proposition of law continues to hold on till date, though, there are certain conditions for the application of the above principles. It is not in dispute that the set of allegations against the appellant in criminal case and in the departmental proceedings are common. There is likelihood of evidence also being common. However, the Court cannot ignore the fact that the appellant has been granted anticipatory bail in an offence under section 376 I.P.C despite the offence being heinous on the plea of the appellant that the relationship with Constable Nirmala was with LPA No. 1971 of 2011(O&M) -3- mutual consent. We do not want to make any comment on that. The appellant has escaped the police custody in jail on this plea. Even if, the charge against the appellant in criminal court is not sustainable, the act complained of, does constitute a service misconduct. Thus, the departmental proceedings against the appellant cannot be said to be unwarranted. Since the criminal prosecution on the same set of allegations is pending and the law also permits that if the criminal proceedings are prolonged for a considerable period, the departmental proceedings can be resumed. Keeping in view the above principle and totality of the circumstances, we dispose of this appeal with the following directions:- 1. Respondents may continue with the departmental proceedings, however, the final decision shall not be taken by the disciplinary authority. 2. The departmental proceedings, thereafter, shall remain in abeyance for a period of one year. 3. If, the criminal trial is not concluded within a period of one year, the disciplinary authority shall be at liberty to pass the final order in the disciplinary proceedings. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE 20.10.2011. lucky