Rajendra Prasad Pandey vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

Rakesh Sharma, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Through this writ petition, the Petitioner has sought to challenge the departmental enquiry initiated against him after a lapse of about ten years.

The Petitioner, Rajendra Prasad Pandey, was appointed as a Routine Grade Assistant in the establishment of High Court on 30.6.1992. On 17.2.1997, a First Information Report was lodged under Sections 498A, 204B and 318 I.P.C. read with Section 201 IPC in which the Petitioner was convicted in Sessions Trial No. 354 of 1998 under Sections 302 and 318 IPC by means of judgment dated 20.7.2005. Against the said judgment, the Petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 3063 of 2005 before the High Court. This Court vide a judgment dated 8.9.2005 disposed of the Criminal Appeal setting aside the conviction of the Petitioner u/s 302 and 318 IPC and remanded back the matter to the Trial court for retrial for the offence under Sections 498A, 304, 318 and 201 IPC. Against the judgment of this Court remanding the matter for retiral, the Petitioner has approached the Hon''ble Apex Court by filing a Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. (s) 6359 of 2005. The Hon''ble Apex Court has passed an order dated 3.1.2006 issuing notice to the parties and stayed operation of the judgment of the High Court directing for retrial of the case. Thereafter on 2.11.2007, leave was granted and interim order datred 3.1.2007 was confirmed.

As a result of the First Information Report, lodged against the Petitioner, he was detained in custody and as such he was put under suspension from 17.2.1997, though he was enlarged on bail. His suspension was revoked after about three years vide an order dated 6.3.2000, but neither any departmental enquiry was initiated nor he was served with any chargesheet. In the meantime, the Petitioner became eligible for promotion on the post of Review Officer for which he had moved a representation to the authority concerned on 27.8.2007. On receiving the representation of the Petitioner, the Respondent No. 2 has issued a belated charge-sheet on the basis of criminal case after about a lapse of ten years. It is pertinent to mention here that after institution of criminal case, trial and the judgment of the High Court, no departmental proceeding, whatsoever, has been initiated against the Petitioner. Only after making representation claiming promotion on the post of Review Officer, the Respondent No. 2 has issued chargesheet.

Sri V.C. Misra, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Vivek Misra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has submitted that after registration of First Information Report, the Petitioner was detained in custody as a result of which he was put under suspension, but no departmental proceeding was instituted. The conviction awarded by the Trial court to the Petitioner under Sections 302 and 318 has already been set aside by this Court and the matter has been remanded back for retrial u/s 498A, 304B, 318 and 201 IPC and that too has been stayed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India and as such the charge sheet issued by the Respondent No. 2 after a lapse of about 12 years without explaining inordinate delay is liable to be quashed.

Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner has further submitted that the Petitioner was falsely implicated in the First Information Report dated 17.2.1997 as a result of which he was arrested on the same day, but subsequently he was enlarged on bail. In the meantime, the Petitioner was suspended, but his suspension was revoked vide order dated 6.3.2000. The Respondent No. 2 did not initiate any departmental proceeding nor issued any chargesheet against him. All of a sudden, after about 12 years'' inordinate delay, that too on receiving representation of Petitioner for promotion on the post of Review Officer, the impugned chargesheet has been issued ignoring the orders of this Court and the interim orders granted by the Hon''ble Apex Court. The inordinate delay of about 12 years'' in issuing chargesheet has not been explained by the Respondent No. 2 and, thus, the Chargesheet is liable to be quashed.

Sri V.C. Misra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, has placed reliance on the following judgments in support of his case:

P.V. Mahadevan Vs. M.D., Tamil Nadu Housing Board,

The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bani Singh and another,

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. N. Radhakishan,

M.V. Bijlani Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others,

Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Another,

Sri Yashwant Verma, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2, has strongly opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that since the offence committed by the Petitioner amounted to gross misconduct, a departmental enquiry had been initiated by order dated 27.11.2007 and a chargesheet was served upon him on 17.12.2007. The Petitioner has been afforded several opportunities to file reply to the chargesheet, but he failed to file reply to the chargesheet. Instead of filing a reply to the chargesheet issued to the Petitioner, he had filed a representation before the Registrar General of the High Court for quashing of the chargesheet, which was rejected by means of the order dated 18.3.2008 against which a departmental Appeal was also filed, which too was dismissed. There is no bar in continuance of a departmental enquiry because a criminal trial is going on in respect of the same charges. The continuance of a charged officer in service is neither in public interest nor in the interest of the institution in the background that the charges levelled against the Petitioner are grave in nature and involved acts of moral turpitude. In the present case, the trial concluded in 2005 convicting the Petitioner against which a Criminal Appeal was preferred, which was allowed, but the Petitioner was not acquitted and a retiral was ordered for offences under Sections 498-B, 304B, 318 and 201 IPC. Against the judgment of the High Court, the Petitioner has approached Hon''ble Apex Court. The Hon''ble Apex Court has stayed operation of the judgment of the High Court. The Hon''ble Apex Court has not acquitted the Petitioner nor the judgment of the Hon''ble High Court has been set aside or quashed. The chargesheet has been rightly issued to the Petitioner.

I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the materials on record.

In the present case, a First Information Report came to be registered on 17.2.1997 and the Petitioner was detained in custody in consequence thereof. Lateron, the Petitioner was released on Bail. The Petitioner was put under suspension, but after about three years, suspension was revoked. The trial concluded in conviction of the Petitioner. Against the judgment and order of the Trial Court, the Petitioner preferred an Appeal in the High Court. The High Court in Appeal has set aside the conviction of the Petitioner u/s 302 and 318 IPC, but remanded the matter for retrial. The Petitioner again approached Hon''ble Apex Court by filing a Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal). The Hon''ble Apex Court has stayed operation of the judgment of the High Court remanding the matter for retiral. The Petitioner was suspended in the year 1997, but the charge sheet was issued to him after an inordinate delay of about 10 years in the year 2007. No explanation has been given by the Registry for issuing the charge sheet at such a belated stage, i.e., after more than 10 years. If the Registry was waiting for the outcome of the criminal case, then, it could have waited for some more time as the matter is still pending consideration before the Hon''ble Apex Court. Allowing the Respondents to proceed further with the departmental proceedings at this belated stage will be prejudicial to the Petitioner. The Petitioner has already suffered for about 12 years. The Registry could have initiated departmental proceedings within a reasonable time. For the inordinate delay caused in issuing charge sheet to the Petitioner after more than ten years, no satisfactory explanation has been given. Thus, this Court is of the view that the impugned Chargesheet issued to the Petitioner after an inordinate delay of more than ten years is liable to be quashed.

This Court has also dealt with this case in the light of the observations and conclusions recorded by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Another, The subject matter of accusation against the Petitioner in the Departmental Enquiry is the same, which is the subject matter of the criminal trial. Moreover, same material is to be relied upon in support of the charges in the Departmental enquiry, which is to be used against the delinquent in the criminal trial. The proceedings of the criminal case are already subjudice before the Hon''ble Apex Court, which has already stayed the proceedings in the aforementioned Appeal. In these facts and circumstances of the case, on the same facts, there appears to be no reason or justification to hold the Departmental Enquiry and issue chargesheet, that too after such an inordinate delay.

The other decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner also supports the case of the Petitioner.

In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned departmental enquiry No. 14/2007 is quashed as result of which the orders dated 10.2.2009, 17.2.2009 and 18.3.2008 are also quashed. The Petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits.