Inder Singh vs State of M.P. and Others

S.C. Sharma

Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the matter, the above cases were heard analogously together and a common order is being passed. The facts of W.P. No. 9724/11(s) are being narrated as under The petitioner before this Court has filed the present petition being aggrieved by charge sheet dated 27.10.11 (Annexure-P/1), by which the competent disciplinary authority has issued a charge sheet for conducting a departmental enquiry against the petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a criminal case has already been registered against the petitioner on account of some unfortunate incident which took place on 20th of April, 2011 and as the criminal case is also pending against the petitioner, the departmental enquiry deserves to be stayed.

A reply has been filed in the matter and the stand of the State Government is that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner certainly based upon the same incident which has taken place on 20th of April, 2011, but the charge sheet issued in the departmental enquiry and the charges framed against the petitioner in the criminal case are altogether different. Learned counsel for the respondents State has drawn the attention of this court towards charge sheet enclosed Annexure-P/1 issued in the departmental enquiry and the same charge sheet reflects that the petitioner has been charge sheeted for non-compliance of regulation 469 paragraph 2 of M.P. Police Regulations. Non-compliance of the aforesaid regulations have allegedly resulted into escape of a prisoner. In the criminal case, crime has been registered for the offence u/s 225 of Indian Penal Code, which deals with resistance or obstruction to lawful apprehension or escape or rescue of another person and there are other allegations against the petitioner certainly in respect of escape of the prisoner in question. Both the charge sheets reveal that the charges are certainly not at all identical. This court has carefully gone through the judgment delivered in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Another, and merely because the incident is same the departmental enquiry does not deserve to be stayed as the charges are altogether different from the charges framed in the criminal case. The petitioner while facing the departmental enquiry shall be free to demonstrate before the Inquiry Officer whether he has followed the provisions of Regulation 469 of the M.P. Police Regulations or not, and therefore, this court does not does not find it to be a fit case for staying the departmental enquiry. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed.

The other identical petitions are also dismissed. No order as to costs.