Full Judgment
Suresh Kumar Pathak versus State & ORS.W.P.No.15284/2012 08/10/2012 Shri D.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned GA for the respondents/State on advance notice.
Challenging the charge-sheet issued by the petitioner on 24.5.2012 by the Superintendent of Police, Chhatarpur and inter- alia contending that for the same allegations as are levelled in the charge-sheet, a criminal case is pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, petitioner has filed this writ petition contending that on the same set of circumstances, the charge- sheet and the criminal case cannot be proceeded.
Petitioner is working as a Head Constable and on 19.4.2012, he was directed to take an accused, one Shri Jagannath son of Dulichandra Yadav to the District Hospital for treatment.
It seems that the accused ran away from the hospital and, therefore, the petitioner is being proceeded against.
As far as the criminal case is concerned, finding the petitioner to have committed various offences in the matter of making it convenient to the accused person to abscond from the hospital and as an accused person has been absconded from the hospital, criminal action is taken on the basis of the F.I.R lodged, whereas the charge-sheet is issued for dereliction of duties and negligence in the matter of taking an accused person for treatment in the hospital.
The allegations levelled against the petitioner can be based on certain fact, which are common but for the Suresh Kumar Pathak versus State & ORS.misconduct, departmental proceedings and the criminal case are for different set of offences of misconduct.
In the departmental proceedings, petitioner is being proceeded for being negligent in performing his duties in as much as he did not take required precaution and care as is expected from a Head Constable and in the criminal case, petitioner is found to be prosecuted under Sections 224, 221, 223 IPC and the same pertains to offences of facilitating an accused person to run away from custody.
The nature of evidence required and the nature of proof for both these charges in the criminal case and the departmental enquiry are entirely different and it cannot be said that if the petitioner is proceeded against in a criminal case, he cannot be proceeded departmentally for the same or his defence in the criminal case will be adversely effected.
Accordingly, keeping in view the law laid down in the cases of Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation versus M.G.Vittal Rao 2012(1) SCC 44.and Indian Overseas Bank, Annasalai and Anr.
versus P.Ganesan and ORS.2008 (1) SCC 65., I see no ground to interfere into the matter.
The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
(Rajendra Menon) Judge nd