IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.19791 of 2011 Date of decision : 16.11.2011 Chandeshwar and another ....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The prayer made in the instant petition is that the departmental proceedings against the petitioners be stayed in view of the fact that on similar charges they are facing criminal prosecution. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon Capt. M.Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another, AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1416(1) to substantiate his case regarding stay of departmental proceedings. A perusal of this judgment, however, does not support the case of the petitioners for the simple reason that it has not been observed in the said judgment that merely because criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings on the similar set of allegations are pending, the later necessarily has to be stayed. It has been observed that it would depend upon facts and circumstances of C.W.P.No.19791 of 2011 -2- each case and while concluding the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under :- “22. The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are : (i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. (ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. (emphasis supplied) (iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge sheet. (iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. C.W.P.No.19791 of 2011 -3- (v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, administration may get rid of him at the earliest.” The Court is thus left to examine as to whether the charges against the petitioners are of such a grave nature which involved complicated questions of law and facts and whether it is desirable in such circumstances to stay the departmental proceedings. Before one is to examine this, the Court cannot lose sight of the fundamental principles of law that the departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings can co-exist. The subsequent question regarding the desirability to stay the proceedings which has to be considered on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case has been considerably eased by the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners who states that he would be satisfied if Mr. Rakesh Kumar Arya, Superintendent of Police, Karnal against whom he alleges serious mala fides is not made the head of the disciplinary proceedings and rather the same are conducted by any other officer of equivalent rank. Having regard to the aforesaid, issue notice of motion only to the aforesaid limited extent. Mr. Harish Rathee, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the State C.W.P.No.19791 of 2011 -4- of Haryana and states that he has no objection if any other officer of equal rank is appointed in place of Mr. Rakesh Kumar Arya. On due consideration, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the inquiry proceedings shall not be conducted under the supervision of Mr. Arya, who shall withdraw himself from the proceedings even incidental ones, in the main inquiry and the proceedings shall now be conducted by any other officer of the equivalent rank to be nominated by the Director General of Police. 16.11.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss