IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6648 of 2008 Date of Decision : December 02, 2008 S.C. Sapra .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Kishan Lal Goel, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. Challenge in the revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurgaon dated 10.10.2008 and by Additional District Judge, Gurgaon dated 18.11.2008, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. was dismissed and the appeal thereafter filed by him also stands dismissed. According to the petitioner, he was working as a Lecturer in Government Post-Graduate College, Sector-9, Gurgaon and a false complaint was lodged against him by father of a student alleging therein that on 15.12.2005, when the student went to attend her tuition at his house, she was alleged to have been sexually harassed by the petitioner. Civil Revision No. 6648 of 2008 -2- The student, however, managed to escape and narrated the facts to her parents, who lodged a complaint with the Principal of the College and also to the police. The allegations in the complaint were baseless and manipulated and concocted by father of the student, who was made a tool by the retired Principal of Government College, Mehrauli Road, Gurgaon because the petitioner had earlier deposed against the retired Principal on 16.12.2005 before Additional Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon about certain irregularities committed by the said Principal. On the basis of the complaint, the police had also registered an F.I.R. under Section 354 I.P.C. against the petitioner. At the same time, the defendants/respondents sent a notice to the petitioner to participate in a preliminary enquiry to be held on 18.9.2008 and directed the petitioner to bring his wife as well during the said proceedings. However, the petitioner was ill and, therefore, sought an adjournment. The charge contained in the F.I.R. and the preliminary enquiry were same and identical, therefore, cross examination involved in cases would also be the same. In case, cross examination was made in preliminary/departmental enquiry, it would expose the proposed defence of the petitioner in the criminal case and adversely affect his rights. He, accordingly, prayed for a decree for permanent injunction so as to restrain respondents from holding departmental/preliminary enquiry till the conclusion of the criminal case. Along with the suit, the petitioner also filed an application for the grant of ad interim injunction in his favour and against the respondents, but as Civil Revision No. 6648 of 2008 -3- mentioned above, the same was declined by the learned trial Court which was upheld in appeal by learned lower appellate Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no complaint, whatsoever, was made by the girl student, rather it was made by her father and, that too, in collusion with a retired Principal of Government College against whom the petitioner had deposed on 16.12.2005 by appearing before Additional Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon about certain irregularities committed by her as Principal of the College in question. It is also submitted that no misconduct, as alleged, had taken place within the premises of the College and, therefore, departmental proceedings could not be initiated against the petitioner. Finally, it was submitted that departmental proceedings were being conducted after a period of two years and nine months from the date of the alleged incident and in case the petitioner is required to be associated in the same, that would expose his defence in the criminal case pending in the Court against him under Section 354 I.P.C. Though, the petitioner is being tried in a case under Section 354 I.P.C. but that by itself is no ground to order the stoppage of the departmental proceedings as they can go on simultaneously with the criminal trial. In Indian Overseas Bank, Anna Salai and another v. P. Ganesan and others, 2008(2) Service Laws Reporter 385, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that departmental and criminal proceedings Civil Revision No. 6648 of 2008 -4- can proceed simultaneously and standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings and, that in a criminal trial, are different. Only a preliminary enquiry is being conducted by the Department. There is no rule or law that such proceedings had to be initiated and completed within a particular time frame. Moreover, the petitioner is not going to suffer, if he is asked by the Department to join in the preliminary enquiry. Similarly, even if the allegations against the petitioner pertain to an incident which had taken place in his house and not in the premises of the College, that is no ground to accept the prayer of the petitioner for the grant of an interim injunction so as to stall the departmental proceedings. At the relevant time, the petitioner was posted as a Lecturer in Government Post-Graduate College, Sector-9, Gurgaon. He was said to have sexually harassed one of the girl students, who had been coming to his house for attending tuition. Keeping in view the status of the petitioner and his posting as a Lecturer in a College, a case was prima facie made out for requiring him to participate in the preliminary enquiry initiated in that respect. Learned lower Courts have, rightly found that no prima facie case was made in favour of the petitioner and the balance of convenience was also not in his favour and he would not suffer any irreparable loss or injury in case the injunction was not granted during the pendency of the trial. Civil Revision No. 6648 of 2008 -5- No case for interference is made out in the findings arrived at by the learned lower Courts, as the same do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The revision is without any merit and, therefore, dismissed. However, nothing stated above, shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. ( T.P.S. MANN ) December 02, 2008 JUDGE satish Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO