TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (10) TMI 516
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l in case FIR No. 2, dated 27.1.2006, registered under Section 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, at Police Station Vigilance, Ambala. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined as Constable on 17.10.1985 and promoted as Head Constable on 25.9.1999. On 27.1.2006, the aforementioned FIR was registered against the petitioner on the basis of a complaint made by Smt. Babli wife of Nimbu Ram, resident of Village Dalip Garh, Ambala Cantt., alleging that the petitioner has demanded a bribe of Rs. 30,000/- for returning their household articles out of which Rs. 10,000/- were paid on 16.12.2005 and the other amount of Rs. 10,000/- on 17.12.2005 and remaining amount of Rs. 10,000/- was to be paid when she made a compla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... same and told that the order dated 18.2.2006 (P-2) is the charge sheet. The case was then adjourned. The Inquiry Officer again issued summons/letter dated 23/25.6.2006 to the petitioner to appear before him on 26.6.2006 (P-7). It has further been alleged that on 26.6.2006 the petitioner appeared before the Inquiry Officer and tried to procure the charge sheet as well as to deliver judgment/orders of this Court but in vein. No proceedings could take place on 26.6.2006, inasmuch as, the witness did not appear on that day. In the written statement the stand taken is that the stage of charge sheet will come after recording of evidence of all PWs in departmental proceedings and at this stage only list of allegations is there, therefore, ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice to the defence of a delinquent officer before the criminal Court is only one factor which is laced with a number of other factors, namely, that the charges must be the same and the case must involve complicated questions of law and facts. The aforementioned view has been taken by their Lordships' in para 14 and 15 of the judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena, (1996) 6 SCC 417, which reads as under:- " 14. It would be evident from the above decisions that each of them starts with the indisputable proposition that there is no legal bar for both proceedings to go on simultaneously and then say that in certain situations, it may not be 'desirable', 'advisable' or 'appropriate' to proceed with the disciplinary enq....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....offices are involved. They get bogged down on one or the other ground. They hardly ever reach a prompt conclusion. That is the reality in spite of repeated advice and admonitions from this Court and the High Courts. If a criminal case is unduly delayed that may itself be a good ground for going ahead with the disciplinary enquiry even where the disciplinary proceedings are held over at an earlier stage. The interests of administration and good government demand that these proceedings are concluded expeditiously. It must be remembered that interests of administration demand that undesirable elements are thrown out and any charge of misdemeanour is enquired into promptly. The disciplinary proceedings are meant not really to punish the guilty ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he desirability of early conclusion of these proceedings. Indeed, in such cases, it is all the more in the interest of the charged officer that the proceedings are expeditiously concluded. Delay in such cases really works against him." The aforementioned view has been approved in the cases of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., (1999) 3 SCC 679; Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. T. Srinivas, (2004) 7 SCC 442 and State Bank of India v. R.B. Sharma, (2004) 7 SCC 27. In Capt. M. Paul Anthony's case (supra) some of the factors which would govern the issue of staying the departmental proceedings during the pendency of a criminal case, have been summarized in para 22 and the same reads as follows:- " 22. (i) Departmental proce....