# Priti Chauhan v. State of U.P. and others - **Citation:** (2008) 3 ILRA 903 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2008-08-21 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42876 of 2008 - **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/priti-chauhan-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41264 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Constitution of India Art. 226Departmental and Criminal proceedingprayer to stay the departmental proceeding so long criminal proceeding concluded-No complicated question of law involved-only show cause notice issued-in departmental proceeding-heldpremature-No interference-at this stage. Held: Para 6 Moreover, no final order has been passed in the departmental proceeding and only a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, even otherwise, the writ petition is premature. Case law discussed: 1999 (3) SCC 679, JT 2005 (8) SC 425, JT 2006 (1) SC 444, AIR 2007 SC 199, 2008 (4) SCC 1, JT 2008 (4) SC 577, JT 2007 (2) SC 620 ## Text 3 All] Priti Chauhan V. State of U.P. and others 903 to vacate, he is required to pay Rs.6,000/- (at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month) as rent/damages for use and occupation. This amount shall also be deposited within one month before the Prescribed Authority and shall immediately be paid to the landlord-petitioner. 17. In case of default in compliance of any of these conditions tenantrespondent shall be evicted through process of Court after one month and shall also be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month since after one month till the date of actual eviction. 18. Similarly, if after filing the aforesaid undertaking and depositing Rs.6,000/- the accommodation in dispute is not vacated on the expiry of six months then damages for use and occupation shall be payable at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month since after six months till actual eviction. It is needless to add that this direction is in addition to the right of the landlord to file contempt petition for violation of undertaking and execution application under Section 23 of the Act. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.08.2008 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42876 of 2008 Priti Chauhan ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri S.C. Srivastava Sri Rajendra Jaiswal Counsel for the Respondents: Sri J.N. Maurya S.C. Constitution of India Art. 226Departmental and Criminal proceedingprayer to stay the departmental proceeding so long criminal proceeding concluded-No complicated question of law involved-only show cause notice issued-in departmental proceeding-heldpremature-No interference-at this stage. Held: Para 6 Moreover, no final order has been passed in the departmental proceeding and only a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, even otherwise, the writ petition is premature. Case law discussed: 1999 (3) SCC 679, JT 2005 (8) SC 425, JT 2006 (1) SC 444, AIR 2007 SC 199, 2008 (4) SCC 1, JT 2008 (4) SC 577, JT 2007 (2) SC 620 (Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.) 1. The short grievance raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is that in respect to the charges, on which departmental enquiry is being conducted against him, a criminal proceeding has also been initiated and, therefore, so long as the criminal proceeding is going on, the authorities cannot proceed with the departmental enquiry and, therefore, a writ of mandamus has been sought for staying the pending departmental enquiry. Reliance is placed on the Apex Court's decision in Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & another 1999 (3) SCC 679. 2. In my view, the submission is thoroughly misconceived. The Apex Court, in the Capt. M. Paul (supra) has INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008 904 clearly held that the departmental as well as criminal, both the proceedings, can go on simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously. The question as to whether during the pendency of criminal proceeding, the departmental proceeding should be stayed depends upon the facts and circumstances of the individual case. In Ajit Kumar Nag Vs. General Manager I.O.C. JT 2005 (8) SC 425, the Apex Court said that the procedure followed in both the cases as well as the subject matter of the departmental enquiry and criminal proceeding has different scope and it cannot not be said that when a criminal proceeding is going on a particular criminal charge, in that regard, the departmental proceeding cannot be allowed to proceed. The same view has been reiterated subsequently, in Chairman/ Managing Director TNCS Corporation Ltd. & others Vs. K. Meerabai JT 2006 (1) SC 444, Suresh Pathrella Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce AIR 2007 SC 199 and Union of India & others Vs. Naman Singh Shekhawat 2008 (4) SCC 1. 3. Referring to Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra), recently the Apex Court in Managing Director, State Bank of Hyderabad & another Vs. P. Kata Rao JT 2008 (4) SC 577 observed that the legal principle enunciated to the effect that on the same set of facts, the delinquent shall not be proceeded in a departmental proceeding and in a criminal proceeding simultaneously has been deviated from. It it also said that the dicta laid down by the Apex Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra), though has remained unshaken but its applicability has been found to be dependent on the facts and situations obtained in each case. 4. Similarly, in the case of Noida Entrepreneurs Assn. Vs. NOIDS & others JT 2007 (2) SC 620, the Court has reproduced the following conclusion deducible from various judgments as noticed in para-22 of the judgment in Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra), namely: "(i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. (ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature, which involved complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. (iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge-sheet. (iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. (v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is 3 All] Smt. Lila Vishwakarma V. State of U.P. and others 905 found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest." 5. A similar view has also been taken in Indian Overseas Bank Vs. P. Ganesan & others AIR 2008 SC 553 and the Court held that where a prayer is made that so long as criminal proceedings are going on, departmental proceeding may not be proceeded, the Court must record a finding that the non grant of stay on departmental proceeding would not only prejudice the delinquent officer, but the matter also involve a complicated question of law. Noting of that sort has been shown by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the case in hand. 6. Moreover, no final order has been passed in the departmental proceeding and only a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, even otherwise, the writ petition is pre-mature. 7. I, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere at this stage. The writ petition is dismissed. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.08.2008 BEFORE THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWAL, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17595 of 2004 Smt Lila Vishwakarma ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri S.K. Yadav Sri Anil Kumar Sharma Sri G.D. Mukherji Sri Satyajit Mukerji Sri R.K. Vaish Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Mohan Yadav S.C. Constitution of India-Art. 226-Salarypetitioner working as A.N.Ms.- transferred from P.H.C. Chail to Newadaon representation considering her personal hardships the authority concern cancelled the Transfer ordersubsequently on approach of interested person-revoked the cancellation orderconsequently the petitioner was directed to open her account at Newada Block only then salary shall be released-inspite of direction of Court-insisting petitioner to open her account at Newada-heldpatently arbitrary-clear cut harassment of petitioner-direction issued to give entire arrears of salary with 40,000/- towards interest alongwith Rs.10,000/- as cost-payment be made through cheque or D.D. within 4 weeks-direction to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the erring Officer. Held: Para 10 The Court finds that during the pendency of the writ petition, no effort was made by the respondents to solve this imbroglio made by the respondents. No effort was made by the respondents to evolve an amicable solution. The respondents remained adamant, insisting that the petitioner should open an Account in Nevada and only then she would be paid her salary. The respondents have paid the arrears of salary to the petitioner by cheque through the Court, and that too, only when the Court, directed the respondents to do so. A clear case of arbitrariness on the part of the respondents is spelt out. The action of the respondents cannot be condoned.