High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Balram Prasad v. State Of U.P. And Another - WRIT - A No. 66237 of 2005  RD-AH 4300 (18 October 2005)
HON. ARUN TANDON, J.
This writ petition has been filed by Balram Prasad, who is employed as Constable in Provincial Armed Constabulary, for quashing of the disciplinary proceedings including the charge memo, which has been served upon the petitioner, dated 14th September, 2005. The only ground for challenge in the present writ petition is that in respect of the same issue a criminal case being Case No. 166/89 under Section 420/467/468 IPC, Police Station Khakeri, Kanpur is pending and 28th November 2005 is alleged to be date fixed in the trial. Therefore, it is contended that in view of Rule 492 of the Police Regulation, departmental proceedings are liable to be kept in abeyance. In support of the said contention the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the Government Order dated 1st July, 1973 as also upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1988) 4 Supreme Court Cases 319; Kusheshwar Dubey v. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Ors.
I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the writ petition.
Except for making a general allegation in paragraph 6 of the writ petition, absolutely no details of the F.I.R. or the charge sheet in the aforesaid criminal case has been disclosed. The allegations made are too general and do not justify any interference being made in the departmental proceedings, which have been initiated against the petitioner, impugned in the present writ petition. Even otherwise in the charge memo, which has been served upon the petitioner, it is alleged that the petitioner has obtained appointment on the basis of forged School Leaving Certificate. Fraud vitiates all actions. Fraud and justice cannot go together. In such circumstances, petitioner will have no right to continue in the employment of State even for a single day, if it is found that appointment had been obtained on the basis of forged document. The departmental proceedings must be brought to their logical end at the earliest possible in accordance with law.
In such circumstances this Court is satisfied that no interference with the departmental proceeding, which have been initiated against the petitioner under the charge memo dated 14th November 2005 is called for. The proceeding must be completed by the authorities concerned, preferably within six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the authority concerned.
So far as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, relied upon by the petitioner, is concerned, suffice is to point out that Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
"While there can be no legal bar for simultaneous proceedings being taken, yet, there may be cases where it would be appropriate to defer disciplinary proceedings awaiting disposal of the criminal case. In the latter class of cases it would be open to the delinquent employee to seek such an order of stay or injunction from the court."
In view of the aforesaid there is no absolute bar in simultaneous proceedings being initiated against the petitioner.
Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.