Deepali Sharma vs High Court Of Uttarakhand Through Its Registrar General And Another

Alok Kumar Verma, J

Heard learned counsel for the parties on the Urgency Application (IA No.1583 of 2020). For the reasons stated in the Urgency Application, the

Urgency Application is allowed.

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to declare the impugned order

dated 17.01.2020 is arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable and also unconstitutional and quash the same alongwith its effect and operation also, after calling

the entire records from the respondents keeping in view the facts highlighted in the body of the petition and to mould the relief appropriately by

appointing an independent person as Inquiry Officer to find out the truth and also to defer the disciplinary proceedings till the final outcome of the

criminal proceedings; a writ of mandamus to declare the entire action/order of the respondents in respect of initiation of departmental proceedings, in

league with charge-sheet and all consequential action is nonest and against the law and to restore the status of the petitioner in service had it been the

aforesaid action/order regarding disciplinary action was not inexistence alongwith all consequential benefits; award damages and compensation to the

petitioner against the tortuous, malicious as well as consequential torts for such amount which the Court may quantify and be recovered from the

erring officers.

The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 seeks and is granted three weeks’ time to file counter affidavit.

Post on 18.02.2020.

Interim Relief Application No.1057 of 2020

The petitioner has filed this interim relief application (CLMA No.1057 of 2020) with the prayer to stay the effect and operation of the impugned

order dated 17.01.2020 and further to defer the departmental proceedings till the final outcome of the criminal proceedings, during pendency of this

writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, for disposal of the interim relief application, submits that the impugned order dated 17.01.2020 is arbitrary,

unreasonable, irrational and unconstitutional. Therefore, the impugned order dated 17.01.2020 is liable to be stayed. The learned counsel for the

petitioner has relied upon the Government Order No.1796/Karmik-2/2005 dated 21.07.2005 and submits that the criminal proceedings and the

departmental proceedings should not go simultaneously.

The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 refuted the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that both the proceedings

can commence simultaneously.

Facts, to the limited extent necessary, for disposal of this interim relief application, are that an First Information Report was lodged against the

petitioner, a Judicial Officer (under suspension), under Sections 370, 323, 504 of IPC and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of

Children) Act, 2015. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide Office Memorandum No.3 dated 30.01.2018. A charge-sheet dated 01.08.2018

also issued by the respondent no.1 for the departmental enquiry. The departmental enquiry is going on.

On 17.01.2020, the respondent no.1 informed the District Judge, Pauri Garhwal, where the petitioner has been attached, “I am directed to

request you to inform Smt. Deepali Sharma that she can raise all her objections after conclusion of the enquiry proceedings, if she is called upon to file

her objections. As enquiry proceedings should not be interdicted midway. She may be advised to participate in the enquiry.â€​

The scope and purpose of criminal proceedings as well as that of departmental enquiry are different. The standard of proof required in the

departmental proceedings is not the same as that required to prove a criminal charge. In State Bank of India vs. R.B. Sharma, AIR 2004 SC 4144, the

Hon’ble Apex Court held that the purpose of a departmental enquiry and that of a prosecution are distinct and different. While the departmental

enquiry is held to maintain discipline in service, the prosecution is initiated to punish for infringement of a duty. The stay of departmental proceedings

cannot be granted as a matter of course.

Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another, (1999) 3 SCC 67,9 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that

proceedings in a criminal case and departmental proceeding can go on simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously,

though separately.

In Indian Overseas Bank, Annasalani and another vs. P. Ganesan and others, (2008) 1 SCC 650, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed

that there is no rule of automatic stay of departmental enquiry during pendency of the criminal proceedings.

It is settled position of law that normally the Court would not interfere in the proceedings of departmental enquiry and would not stay such

proceedings unless inherent lack of jurisdiction in initiating the departmental enquiry or such compelling circumstances or on such other compelling

ground the initiation or continuation of the departmental enquiry is shown to be illegal.

At this stage, that, prima facie, there does not appear to be any compelling reason, such as want of authority in the disciplinary authority or any

other legal impediment in conducting the departmental enquiry. Except for making bald statements, there is nothing in the submissions of the learned

counsel for the petitioner as to how the petitioner would be prejudiced if she participates in the enquiry.

The charge-sheet dated 01.08.2018 was given to the petitioner in the departmental enquiry. The departmental enquiry cannot be kept pending in

such circumstances till eternity.

Thus, in the opinion of the Court, no prejudice is going to caused while conducting the departmental enquiry. Hence, there is no force in the interim

relief application. The interim relief application (CLMA No.1057 of 2020) is hereby rejected.