1. This is a Civil Writ Petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned action of respondents in continuing with the departmental inquiry against the petitioner during the pendency of trial in FIR No.61 dated 08.03.2022 registered under Sections 354-D , 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Chhainsa, District Faridabad.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is one common witness in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal proceedings and the said common witness should not be examined in the departmental proceedings till the time he is examined in the criminal proceedings as in case the said witness is examined in the departmental proceedings, then, the same would cause prejudice to the case of the petitioner in the criminal proceedings. In support of the said argument, 1 of 27 ::: Downloaded on - 25-04-2024 22:47:58 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053566 CWP-8786-2024 [2] 2024:PHHC:053566 learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as "Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. ", reported as 1999(3) SCC 679.

3. Before considering the facts of the present case, it would be relevant to note that this Court had after considering the same argument/issue as raised in the present writ petition, dismissed a bunch of writ petitions i.e. CWP-5111-2024 titled as Mustaq Vs. State of Haryana and others and other connected matters vide judgment dated 10.04.2024. Various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as of this Court were considered and the principles/conclusions which emerged from the said judgments were detailed in para 17 of the judgment dated 10.04.2024 of this Court. Para 17 of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-

Indian Overseas Bank, Anna Salai and Anr (supra) (relevant portion of which is reproduced in Para 6 of the present order); State Bank of India and Ors. (supra) (relevant portion of which is reproduced in Para 8 of the present order).

6. 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. [Specific reference can be made to the judgment of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra)]. Even the question as to whether the case involves identical and similar set of facts would also have to be considered after taking into consideration the FIR, the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and the charges framed. [Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of Paramjit Kaur's (supra)] (relevant portion of which is reproduced in Para 16 of the present order)

7. The fact that the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charges in the criminal case against the delinquent employee are of grave nature which involve complicated questions of law and facts also cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings and due regard must be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. [Specific reference in this regard can be made to the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra) 4 of 27 ::: Downloaded on - 25-04-2024 22:47:58 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053566 CWP-8786-2024 [5] 2024:PHHC:053566 (relevant portion of which is reproduced in para 5 of the present order) and State Bank of India and Ors. (supra).] (relevant portion of which is reproduced in Para 8 of the present order)

8. Before granting stay of the departmental proceedings, special facts of the case are required to be mentioned, warranting stay of departmental proceedings. (Specific reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors (supra) (relevant portion of which is reproduced in Para 7 of the present order).

9. In case all the above parameters are met and the stay of the departmental proceedings has been granted, then also in case, the criminal case is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date. (Specific reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of Capt. M. Paul Anthony 's case (supra) (relevant portion of which is reproduced in Para 5 of the present order)."

4. Various judgments which were relied upon by this Court while passing the judgment dated 10.04.2024, have been detailed in paragraphs 5 to 16 of the said judgment . Paragraphs 5 to 16 of the said judgment are reproduced hereinbelow:-

A perusal of the above judgment would show that the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering various judgments had drawn the conclusion which was given in the abovesaid paragraph. It was held that the departmental proceedings and the proceedings in the criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there was no bar in their being conducted simultaneously. It was further held that departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings if based on identical and similar set of facts and also in case the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, then in such circumstances, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. Thus, all the ingredients i.e., averments/ allegations being identical, based on similar set of facts and the charge being of grave nature involving complicated questions of law and fact are required to be met so as to consider the case of the employee for grant of stay. In sub clause (iii), reference has been made that the evidence and the material collected during investigation or as reflected in the charge sheet is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of considering as to whether the nature of charge in the criminal case is grave in nature and complicated questions of law and fact are involved in the case or not. Importantly, as per sub clause (iv) even in a particular case where it is found that ingredients of sub clause (ii) and (iii) do exist, even then the same cannot be considered in isolation, to stay the departmental proceedings, but further regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. Sub clause (v) specifically provides that if the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, then even in case stay has been granted, with respect to the 7 of 27 ::: Downloaded on - 25-04-2024 22:47:58 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053566 CWP-8786-2024 [8] 2024:PHHC:053566 departmental proceedings, the same can be resumed and proceeded with.

6. Similarly, in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in " Indian Overseas Bank, Anna Salai and Anr. vs. P.Ganesan and others ", reported as 2008(1) SCC 650, it had been specifically observed that the High Court was apart from other considerations also required to consider as to whether the matter involves complicated questions of law. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-

A departmental proceedings pending a criminal proceedings does not warrant an automatic stay. The superior courts before 8 of 27 ::: Downloaded on - 25-04-2024 22:47:58 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053566 CWP-8786-2024 [9] 2024:PHHC:053566 exercising its discretionary jurisdiction in this regard must take into consideration the fact as to whether the charges as also the evidence in both the proceedings are common and as to whether any complicated question of law is involved in the matter.

xxx xxx xxx

22. The issue came up for consideration yet again in T. Srinivas (supra) where this Court while analyzing B.K. Meena (supra) and Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra) held that :-

23. The High Court, unfortunately, although it noticed some of the binding precedents of the Court failed to apply the law in its proper perspective. The High Court was not correct in its view in concluding that the stay of the departmental proceedings should be granted in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case without analyzing and applying the principle of law evolved in the aforementioned decisions. It, therefore, misdirected itself in law. What was necessary to be noticed by the High Court was not only existence of identical facts and the evidence in the matter, it was also required to take into consideration the question as to whether the charges levelled against the delinquent officers, both in the criminal case as also the disciplinary proceedings, were same. Furthermore it was obligatory on the part of the High Court to arrive at a finding that the non stay of the disciplinary proceedings shall not only prejudice the delinquent officers but the matter also involves a complicated question of law."

In the above-said case, the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court had disposed of the appeals on the ground that there was no dispute of the fact that the criminal action and the disciplinary proceedings were founded on the same set of facts and that disciplinary proceedings were solely based upon the criminal complaint lodged by the President of a rival union and that the Bank had not conducted any independent enquiry before initiating the impugned departmental proceedings and thus, the departmental proceedings were postponed till the time the criminal cases were decided. The said order was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by making the observations which have been reproduced hereinabove.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in " Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors. Vs. T.Srinivas ", reported as 2004(7) SCC 442, had observed that there should be special facts in a case so as to persuade the Court to stay departmental proceedings and every case where departmental proceedings and criminal trial with regard to the same misconduct is pending, is not to be stayed. It was also observed in the said judgment that the approach and the objective of the criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings is altogether distinct and different inasmuch as in the disciplinary proceedings, the question is whether the employee is guilty of such conduct as would merit his removal from service or a lesser punishment as the case may be, whereas in the criminal proceedings, the question is whether the offences which the employee is alleged to have committed, are established or not, and if so established the sentence to be imposed. It was further observed that the standard of proof, the mode of enquiry and the rules governing the enquiry and the trial in both the cases are distinct and different. In the said case, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that two articles of charge in the criminal proceedings and the departmental proceedings were identical and the third charge was inter connected and accordingly, the Tribunal had stayed the departmental proceedings till the time the applicant therein disclosed his defence in the criminal trial. The writ 10 of 27 ::: Downloaded on - 25-04-2024 22:47:58 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053566 CWP-8786-2024 [11] 2024:PHHC:053566 petition against the said order was also dismissed and the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the law on the point, set aside the said orders and observed that the Tribunal and the High Court had proceeded on an erroneous principle to the effect that grant of stay of disciplinary proceedings is a must in every case where there is a criminal trial on the same charges. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-

11 of 27 ::: Downloaded on - 25-04-2024 22:47:58 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053566 CWP-8786-2024 [12] 2024:PHHC:053566 proceeded as if a departmental enquiry had to be stayed in every case where a criminal trial in regard to the same misconduct is pending. Neither the tribunal nor the High Court did take into consideration the seriousness of the charge which pertains to acceptance of illegal gratification and the desirability of continuing the appellant in service inspite of such serious charges levelled against him. This Court in the said case of State of Rajasthan (supra) has further observed that the approach and the objective in the criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings is altogether distinct and different. It held that in the disciplinary proceedings the question is whether the respondent is guilty of such conduct as would merit his removal from service or a lesser punishment, as the case may be, whereas in the criminal proceedings the question is whether the offences registered against him are established and, if established, what sentence should be imposed upon him. The court in the above case further noted that the standard of proof, the mode of enquiry and the rules governing the enquiry and trial in both the cases are distinct and different. On that basis, in the case of State of Rajasthan the facts which seems to be almost similar to the facts of this case held that the tribunal fell in error in staying the disciplinary proceedings.

xxx xxx xxx

14. We are of the opinion that both the tribunal and the High Court proceeded on an erroneous legal principle without taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case and proceeded as if the stay of disciplinary proceedings is a must in every case where there is a criminal trial on the very same charges......"

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in " State Bank of India and Ors. vs. Neelam Nag and Anr. , reported as 2016(9) SCC 491, had observed as under:-

The interest of the delinquent officer as well as the employer clearly lies in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.

(iv) Departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously to the criminal trial, except where both the proceedings are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common.

(emphasis supplied)"

9. By relying upon the law laid down in the above-said judgments, this Court had dismissed CWP-975-2024, decided on 16.01.2024, titled as " Ravi Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others " and also a bunch of two writ petitions i.e. CWP-11203-2020 titled as " Rajbir Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others " and CWP- 17535-2020 titled as " Satish Chander Vs. State of Haryana and others ", vide judgment dated 04.12.2023. Primary prayer in the above-said writ petitions was also for staying the departmental proceedings during the pendency of the criminal case registered against the petitioners therein, on the ground that the allegations in the criminal case as well as in the departmental proceedings relate to the same incident and in case the common witnesses are examined in the departmental proceedings prior to their being examined in the criminal case, then, the same would cause prejudice to their defence in the criminal proceedings.

10. Against the judgment dated 16.01.2024 passed in the case of Ravi Kumar (supra) by this Court, LPA No.470-2024 was filed by Ravi Kumar, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 15.03.2024. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein below: -

The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition wherein, the order dated 21.08.2023 (Annexure P-3) was subject matter of challenge wherein the departmental proceedings had been initiated against the employee who is a police official and the employee had been placed under suspension and summary of allegations (Annexure P-4) and charge sheet had been served upon him on account of the fact that he was involved in criminal case in FIR No. 20 dated 20.08.2023 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 lodge at Police Station ACB, Ambala in which he was arrested by the team of Anti Corruption Bureau.

2. The prayer made in the writ petition was to keep the departmental proceedings in abeyance till the final decision of the criminal case.

xxx xxx xxx xxx

4. In LPA-565-2020, State of Haryana and others vs. Satish Kumar decided by Division Bench of this Court on 30.05.2022, authored by one of us G.S. Sandhawalia, J., we allowed the appeal of the State and dismissed the writ petition by keeping in mind the scope of both set of proceedings and the SLP filed against the same i.e. Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 15243 of 2022 was also dismissed on 10.11.2022. Similar view was also taken in LPA-2096-2017, State of Haryana and others vs. Suresh Punia , decided on 09.09.2022 by Division Bench of this Court in which one of us i.e. G.S. Sandhawalia, J. was Member. SLP (Civil) bearing Diary No.22 of 2023 filed against the same also stands dismissed on 16.01.2023.

5. In State of Karnataka and others vs. Umesh , 2022 SCC Online SC 345, the employee had been proceeded against under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and 15 of 27 ::: Downloaded on - 25-04-2024 22:47:58 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053566 CWP-8786-2024 [16] 2024:PHHC:053566 had been acquitted after giving him the benefit of doubt. Resultantly, the Apex Court had gone on to hold that the principles which govern a disciplinary inquiry are distinct from those which apply to a criminal trial and in the former, the charge has to be established beyond reasonable doubt whereas in the later, the charge of misconduct has to be established on the principle of 'preponderance of probabilities'. It is also held that the rules of evidence which apply to both the procedures are distinct.

6. A three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Shashi Bhusan Prasad vs. Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force and others, (2019) 7 SCC 797 held that the two proceedings i.e. criminal and departmental operate in different fields and have different objectives. The objective of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on an offender whereas the purpose of inquiry proceedings is to deal with the employee departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with the Service Rules.

7. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present appeal, the same stands dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly."

11. Similarly, the judgment of this Court in Rajbir Singh and others case (supra) was also challenged by filing LPA No.2217- 2023; LPA-324 and 327 of 2024 and a Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 15.03.2024 dismissed the said LPAs and upheld the judgment of this Court in Rajbir Singh and others case (supra) and other connected matters. It would be relevant to note that this Court had also granted interim orders in some of the writ petitions even after the judgment of this Court in Ravi Kumar 's case (Supra) and Rajbir Singh and others case (supra), as certain interim orders were passed by the LPA Bench. After the passing of the judgment of 16 of 27 ::: Downloaded on - 25-04-2024 22:47:58 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053566 CWP-8786-2024 [17] 2024:PHHC:053566 the Division Bench in LPA No.470 of 2024, Ravi Kumar 's case (Supra) upholding the order passed by this Court in CWP No.975 of 2024, Ravi Kumar's case (Supra), the issue in question stands crystallized and the present bunch of writ petitions are being finally adjudicated upon.

12. Division Bench of this Court in LPA-252-2021, decided on 23.07.2021 titled as " L/ASI Seema Vs. State of Haryana and others ", had in a case, where similar grievance was raised, as has been raised in the present bunch of writ petitions observed that it was a settled position of law that proceedings in a criminal case and departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously and that the purpose of a departmental inquiry and of prosecution in a criminal case are distinct and different. It was further observed that the departmental enquiry is conducted in order to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service and thus, the disciplinary proceedings should be conducted and completed expeditiously and that there is no legal bar to the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings and criminal trial simultaneously and accordingly, the Division Bench opined that no direction could be given to the effect that common witnesses in departmental proceedings and the criminal trial would first be examined in the criminal trial and only thereafter in the departmental proceedings. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein below: -

So, it is well settled position in law that proceedings in criminal case and departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously except where departmental proceedings and criminal case are based on same set of facts and evidence. At 18 of 27 ::: Downloaded on - 25-04-2024 22:47:58 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053566 CWP-8786-2024 [19] 2024:PHHC:053566 the same time, the Court cannot ignore the fact that the purpose of departmental inquiry and of prosecution in criminal case are two different aspects. In State Bank of India and Others vs. R.B. Sharma , 2004(7) SCC 27, it was observed as under:-

The standard of proof in the criminal case is altogether different from that in departmental inquiry. In case of disciplinary enquiry the technical rules of evidence have no application. Also in such a situation the action of the department cannot be termed as double jeopardy as has been held in The Divisional Controller, KSRTC vs. M.G. Vittal Rao , 2012(1) SCC 442 .

It is generally seen that the criminal cases do not proceed quickly, whereas the departmental proceedings are concluded within a short span of time. Admittedly, the appellant is member of the police force. The departmental inquiry is being conducted against her to maintain discipline in the department and efficiency of public service. It would therefore be expedient that the departmental proceedings against the appellant are conducted and completed expeditiously. The disciplinary inquiry 19 of 27 ::: Downloaded on - 25-04-2024 22:47:58 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053566 CWP-8786-2024 [20] 2024:PHHC:053566 cannot be delayed unduly. The learned Single Judge referred to CWP-9999-2006 titled as Prem Singh vs. State of Haryana and Others decided on 28.10.2006, wherein the Division Bench of this Court while referring to judgment in Capt. M. Paul Anthony 's case (supra) held that departmental proceedings cannot be permitted to wait endlessly till the conclusion of criminal trial, which may take its own time and it would not be in the interest of the Department that a person like the petitioner who is charged with serious misconduct continued to be in service and accordingly the writ petition was dismissed. The learned Single Judge also referred to Ved Parkash vs. State of Haryana and Others , 2007(4) SCT 423, wherein also the similar view was taken by the Division Bench of this Court in a case relating to bribe accepted by Head Constable working in Haryana Police.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the The Divisional Controller, KSRTC 's case (supra) considered the judgement of Capt. M. Paul Anthony 's case (supra) and opined that this judgment is not of universal application. Even in State Bank of India and Others ' case (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly observed that it is well settled that there is no legal bar to the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings and criminal trial simultaneously.

xxx xxx xxx xxx We are also of the opinion that even no direction could be given to the effect that common witnesses in departmental proceedings and the criminal trial would first be examined in the criminal trial and only thereafter in the departmental proceedings, as it would also prejudice the interest of the department.

In view of the above, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Consequently, the appeal is hereby dismissed being 20 of 27 ::: Downloaded on - 25-04-2024 22:47:58 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053566 CWP-8786-2024 [21] 2024:PHHC:053566 devoid of merits."

13. It would be relevant to note that in the above-said judgment, counsel for the appellant therein had brought to the notice of the Court different interim orders passed by the Courts whereby stay of departmental proceedings was ordered and it was directed that common witnesses in the departmental inquiry and the criminal trial would first be examined in the criminal trial and thereafter in the departmental proceedings and it was after considering the said interim orders that the above said judgment was passed by the Division Bench of this Court, rejecting the pleas of the appellant therein and upholding the judgment of the learned Single Bench, vide which the writ petition was dismissed. It would be further relevant to note that the SLP against the said judgment i.e. Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.13573-2021 titled as " L/ASI Seema Vs. State of Haryana and others ", was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 29.11.2021 and thus , the said judgment has attained finality.

14. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in "Dr.Balwinder Kumar Sharma vs. Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court through Registrar General, CWP-7539-2021, decided on 28.05.2021 has held as under:-

(iii) The departmental proceedings is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service and thus, its initiation and conclusion as expeditiously as possible is in public interest. In the present case, it is not disputed that challan was presented in the year 2019 and charges were framed on 31.01.2020 (P-11), however till date no progress has been made in the criminal trial on account of one reason or the other. Although, the delay in criminal trial cannot be attributed to the petitioner, at the same time, the department cannot be expected to wait endlessly for the trial to conclude as held in Capt. M. Paul Anthony 's case (supra).

xxx xxx xxx Further, it is to be noted that charges under Sections 409 , 420 , 120-B and 201 IPC have been framed on the basis of documentary and other evidence collected by the SIT during the course of investigation. How the paper was leaked and the manner it was further supplied for prosecution / Department to prove, which otherwise is within the special knowledge of the accused. Therefore, there is no question of any disclosure of defence in the departmental proceedings. As far as the various provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are concerned, most of the provisions are to be proved by the prosecution during the course of trial except the one concerning "known sources of income", which again is within the special knowledge of accused-petitioner. Hence, there seems to be no justification in the prayer made by petitioner for staying of disciplinary proceedings."

In the abovesaid judgment, the reasons for early conclusion of departmental proceedings have been highlighted and it 22 of 27 ::: Downloaded on - 25-04-2024 22:47:58 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053566 CWP-8786-2024 [23] 2024:PHHC:053566 has been further observed that the department cannot wait endlessly for the criminal trial to conclude irrespective of the fact that the delay in the criminal trial is attributed to the employee or not. It is further observed in the said case that an early conclusion of the departmental proceedings was necessary in order to weed out an employee whose integrity / character has been put to doubt on account of initiation of criminal proceedings and since the purpose of the said proceedings is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. It was also observed that during the pendency of the said proceedings, since the employee is suspended, thus, the said employee would get some part of pay without doing work which would amount to unnecessarily entailing burden on the exchequer and would be against public interest.

15. Against the said judgment , an SLP was filed i.e. Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.8279-2021 titled as "Dr.Balwinder Kumar Sharma vs. Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and other and the learned senior counsel for the appellant therein sought permission to withdraw the special leave petition and accordingly, vide order dated 17.10.2022, the special leave petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

16. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in LPA-239- 2022 titled as " Paramjit Kaur Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank and others " decided on 24.03.2022 had held as under:-

A perusal of the above judgment would show that the charges/charge sheet in the criminal case was not placed before the 24 of 27 ::: Downloaded on - 25-04-2024 22:47:58 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053566 CWP-8786-2024 [25] 2024:PHHC:053566 learned Single Judge and that thus, the contention of the appellant therein that the basis of the departmental proceedings and criminal trial were the same, was neither substantiated nor established. It was also observed that in the said circumstances, no complicated questions of law and facts were involved."

5. In the light of the abovesaid judgments and also the abovesaid principles/conclusions, for the reasons detailed hereinafter, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition is meritless and deserves to be dismissed.

6. The petitioner while holding the post of Assistant Sub Inspector in Haryana Police was involved in FIR No.61 dated 08.03.2022 under Sections 354-D , 509 of the IPC on a complaint made by ASI Neelam on the allegations that she had received a call from the present petitioner from his mobile Number 87429-51225 and in the said phone call, the petitioner used abusive and foul language and also threatened the said complainant. Further allegations have been made that similar threats were also given by the petitioner to Head Constable-Manoj who was investigating another FIR and the said Head Constable-Manoj had recorded the conversation with the petitioner. Final Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. in the criminal case has been presented and a perusal of the said report which has been annexed as Annexure P-3 would show that the said recording of conversation has been produced by Head Constable-Manoj which has been taken into police custody. It is the case of the petitioner that the charges have not been framed in the criminal case and same is now fixed for 06.05.2024 for framing of the charges. The departmental proceedings were also initiated against the petitioner and it is the case of the petitioner that the evidence in the 25 of 27 ::: Downloaded on - 25-04-2024 22:47:58 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053566 CWP-8786-2024 [26] 2024:PHHC:053566 departmental proceedings is yet to start.

7. From the abovesaid facts, it is apparent that primary issue for consideration in the criminal case is as to whether the petitioner had threatened and had used abusive language against the complainant and Head Constable-Manoj or not. The same in the opinion of this Court does not involve any complicated questions of law and facts, nor any complicated questions of law and facts have been brought to the notice of this Court, nor any judgment has been cited by the counsel for the petitioner to show that the facts of the present case give rise to complicated questions of law or facts.

Further, no special facts arise in the present case, which are required to be mentioned, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors (supra) warranting stay of departmental proceedings, rather the allegations against the petitioner are such that the departmental proceedings are required to be culminated expeditiously.

8. It would be relevant to note that in the present case the report under Section 173 CrPC has already been submitted and the statement of the witness under Section 161 CrPC has already been recorded and a copy of the same has been given to the petitioner/accused and it is for the prosecution to prove the case against the petitioner by relying upon the evidence of the witness whose statement has already been recorded under Section 161 CrPC and the documents which form a part of the report under Section 173 CrPC and thus, the plea of prejudice raised is misconceived. Thus, keeping in view the principles as have been enumerated in para 17 of the judgment passed by this Court in Mustaq 's case (Supra), and the abovesaid facts, there is no 26 of 27 ::: Downloaded on - 25-04-2024 22:47:58 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053566 CWP-8786-2024 [27] 2024:PHHC:053566 ground to accept the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that till the time common witness is examined in the criminal case, the said witness should not be examined in the departmental proceedings and thus, the writ petition being meritless, deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed.

9. It is made clear that this Court has not opined on the merits of the allegations either in the criminal proceedings or in the departmental proceedings and the trial Court in the criminal case as well the competent authority in the departmental proceedings would consider and adjudicate / decide the same independently, in accordance with law.

10. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of in view of the abovesaid order.