Jagmal Singh & Others vs State Of Haryana & Others on 31 August, 2009

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                 CHANDIGARH

                                 RSA NO.3166 OF 2009
                                 DECIDED ON : 31.08.2009

Jagmal Singh & others                            ...Appellants

                           versus

State of Haryana & others                        ...Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI

Present : Mr. Suresh Kumar Redhu, Advocate
          for the appellants.

AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL)

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the

Lower Appellate Court reversing that of the Trial Court dismissing

the suit of the appellant for permanent injunction restraining the

respondents from continuing with the departmental inquiry on

the allegation that the appellant is facing a trial on the same

charges in the Criminal Court. The following questions have been

proposed:

i) Whether the departmental inquiry as well as criminal case

can go simultaneously especially when both are based on

same grounds?

ii)Whether the conducting of departmental inquiry amounts

to double jeopardy when the facts are same in the

criminal case as well as departmental inquiry?

iii)Whether the departmental inquiry will be done in a fair

manner especially when the inquiry officer is under the

influence of higher authorities of police department, who

are bent upon to punish the appellants?

RSA No.3166 of 2009 -2-

iv)Whether the appellants will be compelled to disclose their

defences in advance in the departmental inquiry if the

same is permitted to go and the appellant will suffer

irreparable loss which cannot be compensated at later

stage?

It would be seen that all the questions are related. In

a latest decision in the case of Balwinder Singh vs. State of

Punjab reported as 2009(1) SCT 86 a Division Bench of this

Court has specifically held that it is not an inflexible rule that the

departmental inquiry and Trial cannot proceed together. Further,

it would be seen from the facts of the present case that now the

appellants have succeeded in lingering the departmental

proceedings for more than five years. A perusal of the judgment

of the Lower Appellate Court further reveals that charge was

framed against the appellants as far back as 18.10.2004. In

these circumstances, applying the above dictum of law the

proposed questions have to be held against the appellants.

Consequently, this appeal is dismissed.

August 31, 2009                               (AJAY TEWARI)
sonia                                             JUDGE