# Rinku Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 1002
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-10-08
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 6978 of 2021
- **Bench:** Saral Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rinku-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46444
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Criminal Case and Disciplinary
proceeding - U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate
Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 -
Section 14(1) - Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Sections 392, 406, 395 & 412; Indian Police Act,
1861 - Section 7 - Police Regulation - Regulation
492, 493 - Proceedings in criminal case and
departmental
proceedings
can
go
on
simultaneously, except where departmental
proceedings and criminal case are based on the
same set of facts and the evidence in both the
proceedings is common. (Para 16)

The purpose of the two proceedings are totally
different, therefore both the proceedings can continue
simultaneously as the departmental proceeding is to
maintain discipline and efficiency in public service;
criminal proceedings are initiated to punish a person
for committing an offence violating the public duty. The
nature of evidence in both criminal and disciplinary
proceedings
is
different.
In
the
disciplinary
proceedings, the rule of the preponderance of
probabilities is applied whereas, in the criminal
proceeding, the principle of strict standard of proof
beyond a reasonable doubt is applicable. (Para 17, 18,
19)

The gravity of the charge is not by itself enough
to determine the question of continuance of
departmental
and
criminal
proceedings
simultaneously unless the charge involves
complicated questions of law and fact and
continuance of disciplinary proceeding is likely
to prejudice the defence of the employee before
the criminal court. (Para 19)

In the present case, firstly, the charges against the
petitioner in the criminal proceeding and disciplinary
proceeding are not identical as there is one additional
charge in the disciplinary proceeding. Secondly, to
succeed, the petitioner has to demonstrate that charge
against the petitioner is grave and involves complicated
questions of fact and law and further if the disciplinary
proceeding is continued that would prejudice the
criminal trial of the petitioner. Though a bald averment
has been made that continuance of disciplinary
proceeding would prejudice the criminal trial, there is
no pleading in the writ petition as to how continuance
of disciplinary proceeding would prejudice the criminal
trial of the petitioner. (Para 22, 23)

B. Words and Phrases - 'has been' - 'has been'
refers to an event which has already occurred. The
words "has been" reflect to something which has
performed and accomplished in past and is not
continuing in present. The words "has been" refer to
the state of affairs as existed in past and it is a
present perfect tense. (Para 20)

C. Police Regulation: Regulation 492, 493 -
Regulation 492 clearly says that where a police officer
"has been judicially tried". The language is very
important. It talks of something which has already
happened. The simple language of provision shows
where a police officer has been tried judicially and
only the judgment is awaited, in such circumstances
and in interregnum period, the competent authority
should not decide to take further departmental action
but should await the decision. In other words,
Regulation 492 shall be attracted only when the
11 All. Rinku Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1003
judicial trial is over but judgment has not been
delivered and it is awaited. (Para 20)

Similarly Regulation 493 is attracted when trial is
complete and judgment of trial court has also come,
resulting in recording a finding in favour of police
officer. It restrains the competent authority in such
matter to create a situation where a contrary finding
can be recorded in departmental proceedings vis-a-vis
court's verdict and the Regulation provides that such
a contingency should not occur hence it prohibits
such a course to be followed by competent authority.
(Para 20)

Court observed that in the instant case, these
regulations do not come in aid to petitioner as
only charge sheet has been issued and that early
conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding is g

## Text

1002 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of 2009 even for works in relations to election
which in my opinion includes preparation of
electoral rolls as provided under Article 324 of
the Constitution of India. Therefore, no fault can
be attributed to the deployment of the petitioners
in relations to the election work.

17. Therefore, there being no violation of
the provisions of Section 27 of the Act of 2009,
petition fails and is dismissed.
----------
(2021)12ILR A1002
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.10.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ-A No. 6978 of 2021

Rinku Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shadab Ali

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Criminal Case and Disciplinary
proceeding - U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate
Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 -
Section 14(1) - Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Sections 392, 406, 395 & 412; Indian Police Act,
1861 - Section 7 - Police Regulation - Regulation
492, 493 - Proceedings in criminal case and
departmental
proceedings
can
go
on
simultaneously, except where departmental
proceedings and criminal case are based on the
same set of facts and the evidence in both the
proceedings is common. (Para 16)

The purpose of the two proceedings are totally
different, therefore both the proceedings can continue
simultaneously as the departmental proceeding is to
maintain discipline and efficiency in public service;
criminal proceedings are initiated to punish a person
for committing an offence violating the public duty. The
nature of evidence in both criminal and disciplinary
proceedings
is
different.
In
the
disciplinary
proceedings, the rule of the preponderance of
probabilities is applied whereas, in the criminal
proceeding, the principle of strict standard of proof
beyond a reasonable doubt is applicable. (Para 17, 18,
19)

The gravity of the charge is not by itself enough
to determine the question of continuance of
departmental
and
criminal
proceedings
simultaneously unless the charge involves
complicated questions of law and fact and
continuance of disciplinary proceeding is likely
to prejudice the defence of the employee before
the criminal court. (Para 19)

In the present case, firstly, the charges against the
petitioner in the criminal proceeding and disciplinary
proceeding are not identical as there is one additional
charge in the disciplinary proceeding. Secondly, to
succeed, the petitioner has to demonstrate that charge
against the petitioner is grave and involves complicated
questions of fact and law and further if the disciplinary
proceeding is continued that would prejudice the
criminal trial of the petitioner. Though a bald averment
has been made that continuance of disciplinary
proceeding would prejudice the criminal trial, there is
no pleading in the writ petition as to how continuance
of disciplinary proceeding would prejudice the criminal
trial of the petitioner. (Para 22, 23)

B. Words and Phrases - 'has been' - 'has been'
refers to an event which has already occurred. The
words "has been" reflect to something which has
performed and accomplished in past and is not
continuing in present. The words "has been" refer to
the state of affairs as existed in past and it is a
present perfect tense. (Para 20)

C. Police Regulation: Regulation 492, 493 -
Regulation 492 clearly says that where a police officer
"has been judicially tried". The language is very
important. It talks of something which has already
happened. The simple language of provision shows
where a police officer has been tried judicially and
only the judgment is awaited, in such circumstances
and in interregnum period, the competent authority
should not decide to take further departmental action
but should await the decision. In other words,
Regulation 492 shall be attracted only when the
11 All. Rinku Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1003
judicial trial is over but judgment has not been
delivered and it is awaited. (Para 20)

Similarly Regulation 493 is attracted when trial is
complete and judgment of trial court has also come,
resulting in recording a finding in favour of police
officer. It restrains the competent authority in such
matter to create a situation where a contrary finding
can be recorded in departmental proceedings vis-a-vis
court's verdict and the Regulation provides that such
a contingency should not occur hence it prohibits
such a course to be followed by competent authority.
(Para 20)

Court observed that in the instant case, these
regulations do not come in aid to petitioner as
only charge sheet has been issued and that early
conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding is good
in the interest of the employee as well as the
department for the reason that if the employee is
exonerated from the charges, he may not be out
of service unnecessarily and may be reinstated
and if the employee is found guilty, the
department will get rid of such employee who is
not worth continuing in the employment. (Para
12, 24)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. M. Paul Anthony Vs Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & anr.,
1999 (3) SCC 679 (Para 15)

2. S.B.I. & ors. Vs R.B. Sharma, (2004) 7 SCC 27
(Para 16)

3. Noida Entrepreneurs Assc. Vs NOIDA & ors. , 2007
(2) ADJ 86 (SC) (Para 17)

4. Surendra Singh & anr. Vs St. of U.P. & anr., 2012
(2) ADJ 135 (LB) (Para 20)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saral Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner
and Dr. Amarnath Singh, learned Standing
Counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3.

2. The petitioner by means of the present
writ petition has prayed for the following relief:-

"(i). Issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature
Certiorari
to
quash
departmental
proceeding under Rule 14(1) of the U.P. Police
Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and
Appeal) Rules-1991 related to Case Crime
No.109 of 2019, under Sections 392, 406 I.P.C.,
Police
Station-Nagal,
District
Saharanpur,
pending
against
the
Petitioner
before
Respondent no.3.

(ii). Issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus commanding and directing
the Respondents especially Respondent No.3 not
to proceed further departmental proceeding
against the Petitioner under Rule 14(1) of the
U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks
(Punishment and Appeal) Rules-1991 related to
Case Crime No.109 of 2019, under Sections 392,
406 I.P.C., Police Station-Nagal, District
Saharanpur, pending before him."

3. The brief facts of the case are that
petitioner is a Police Constable. He was posted
in Surveillance Cell G.R.P., Agra. One Mohd.
Akhtar lodged an F.I.R. against one Basheer and
some unknown person under Sections 406 and
392 of I.P.C alleging that at about 3.00 A.M on
13.05.2019, he had looted Rs.8,34,700/- from
his brother when he was sleeping along with his
friends on the roof of a house behind the Dhaba
of Mulla Ji in village Umah, P.S. Nagar, District
Saharanpur. The police arrested Basheer and
other persons. During the investigation, the
accused admitted loot, and further stated that the
loot was committed with the help of Constable
Rinku Singh i.e. the petitioner. The looted
money was recovered from the possession of the
accused and accordingly, police converted the
case under Sections 395 and 412 of I.P.C.

4. According to the petitioner, he was not
named in the F.I.R. and his name surfaced
during the confessional statement of accused
persons. The petitioner filed Criminal Misc. Writ
Petition No.14957 of 2019 against the F.I.R.
dated 13.05.2019 in which this Court stayed the
1004 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
arrest of the petitioner till submission of a police
report under Section 173(2) of Cr. P.C by order
dated 29.05.2019. The police after investigation
submitted charge sheet.

5. The Magistrate Deoband, Saharanpur took
cognizance of the charge sheet, and accordingly, a
Criminal Case No.579 of 2019 (State Vs. Basheer
Khan and Others) was registered which is pending
before the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial
Magistrate, Deoband, District Saharanpur.

6. It appears that a departmental proceeding
had also been initiated against the petitioner on
account of his involvement in the criminal case
and accordingly, a charge sheet dated 21.08.2019
has been issued to the petitioner on the following
charges:-

"प्रधतसार उप धनरीक्षक जी०आर०पी० लाइन अनुभाग आगरा
श्री छोटे धसांह की आख्या धदनाांधकत 14.05.2019 के माध्यम से
धदनाांक 13.05.2019 को पुधलस उपािीक्षक रेलवे आगरा अनुभाग
आगरा के आदेिानुसार आप तीनोां कममचारीगणोां को आपके
कायामलय में तलािा गया, न धमलने पर आपकी रपट गैरहाधजरी
धदनाांक 13.05.2019 को रपट सांख्या 16 समय 20:35 बजे जीआरपी
लाइन अनुभाग आगरा के रोजनामचा आम मे अांधकत करायी गयी।
और धदनाांक 14.05.2019 को दैधनक समाचार पत्र के अवलोकन से
पाया धक धनरीक्षक 052010095 ना०पु० लधलक कुमार त्यागी व
आरक्षी 299/062494410 िायर वेग व आरक्षी 2378/062531098
ररन्कू धसांह के धवरुि थाना नागल जनपद सहारनपुर मे मु०अ०सां०
109/2019 िारा 406,392 आईपीसी तरमीम िारा 395/412
आईपीसी में नाम प्रकाि मे आया है एवां धनरीक्षक 052010095
ना०पु० लधलत कुमार त्यागी की धदनाांक 13.05.2019 को समय
21:05 बजे धगरफ्तारी हुई एवां 1,44,000/- रुपया बरामद हुआ। तथा
दोनो आरक्षी धगरफ्तार नहीां धकये गये है। आपका यह कृत्य पुधलस
धवभाग जैसे अनुिाधसत बल की स्वि छधव को िूधमल करता है।
और एतद्द्वारा आपके द्वारा घोर लापरवाही/ अनुिासनहीनता /
स्वेिाचाररता का पररचय धदया गया है।"

7. The petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid
charge sheet submitted his reply on 11.01.2020.

8. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the
petitioner has prayed for the reliefs extracted
above.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that charge in the criminal case as
well as in the departmental proceeding is
identical,
and
in
case,
the
departmental
proceeding is allowed to be continued, same
shall prejudice the criminal trial of the petitioner,
as the petitioner would have to disclose the
defence in the departmental proceeding which
he wants to take in the criminal proceeding.
Accordingly, he submits that in the facts of the
present case, it is desirable in the interest of
justice that this Court may stay the departmental
proceeding till the criminal trial is concluded. In
support of his aforesaid contention, he has
placed reliance upon Regulations 492 & 493 of
Police Regulation. He has also placed reliance
upon the interim order passed by this Court in
Writ-A No.24162 of 2010.

10. Rebutting the aforesaid contention,
learned Standing Counsel would contend that
there is no bar in law that the departmental
proceeding and criminal trial cannot continue
simultaneously. He submits that the purpose of
the departmental proceeding and trial by the
criminal court is different, and parameters to
consider the departmental inquiry and criminal
trial are different. He further submits that rules
relating to the appreciation of evidence in the
two inquiries are also different. The further
submission is that finding can be recorded in the
preponderance
of
probabilities
in
the
departmental inquiry and it is not necessary that
charge must be proved to the hilt.

11. The further submission is that it is the
domain of the disciplinary authority to conclude
in the given fact and circumstances whether the
continuance of the departmental proceeding
would prejudice the criminal trial of the
employee, and therefore, he submits that this
Court should not exercise its power under
Article 226 of Constitution of India to stay the
departmental proceeding, as the continuance of
11 All. Rinku Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1005
departmental proceeding is dependent upon the
evidence and material on record.

12. He further submits that Regulations
492 & 493 of Police Regulation do not come in
aid to petitioner as the said regulation talks of
cases where police official has been judicially
tried and judgment in the criminal trial is
awaited whereas in the instant case, only charge
sheet has been issued. He further contends that
charges in the departmental proceeding and
criminal trial are not identical since, in addition
to the charge of involvement of the petitioner in
criminal activity, there is an additional charge in
the
departmental
proceeding
against
the
petitioner. Thus, he submits that no case for
interference by the Court has been made out by
the petitioner, and the writ petition deserves to
be dismissed.

13. I have considered the rival submissions
of the parties and perused the record.

14. The undisputed facts as emanates from
the record are that petitioner was implicated in a
criminal case bearing Case Crime No.109 of
2019, under Sections 395 and 412 of I.P.C.
Simultaneously, a departmental proceeding had
also been initiated against the petitioner under
Section 7 of Indian Police Act, 1861 in which
two charges had been leveled against the
petitioner; firstly, petitioner was absent on
13.05.2019 in the G.R.P. Line, Agra and absence
of petitioner have been recorded in the general
diary through Report No.16, time 20:35.
Secondly, it has come to the knowledge of the
department through a news item published in the
daily newspaper on 14.05.2019 that a criminal
case has been lodged against the petitioner along
with other constables in which petitioner was
arrested at 9:05 P.M. on 13.05.2019 and amount
of Rs.1,44,000/- was recovered from him.

15. The Apex Court in the case of Capt. M.
Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd and
Another 1999 (3) SCC 679 has held in
paragraph 22 as under:-

"22. The conclusions which are deducible
from various decisions of this Court referred to
above are:-

(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 involves 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 found not guilty his
honour may be vindicated and in case he is
found guilty, administration may get rid of him
at the earliest."

16. In the case of State Bank of India and
Others Vs. R.B. Sharma 2004 7 SCC 27, the
Apex Court has explained the object of
1006 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
departmental
proceeding
and
criminal
proceeding. Paragraphs 7 & 8 of the said
judgment are being extracted herein below:-

"7. It is a fairly well-settled position in law
that on basic principles proceedings in criminal
case and departmental proceedings can go on
simultaneously, except where departmental
proceedings and criminal case are based on the
same set of facts and the evidence in both the
proceedings is common.

8. The purpose of departmental enquiry and
of prosecution are two different and distinct
aspects. Criminal prosecution is launched for an
offence for violation of a duty the offender owes
to the society, or for breach of which law has
provided
that
the
offender
shall
make
satisfaction to the public. So crime is an act of
commission in violation of law or of omission of
public duty. The departmental enquiry is to
maintain discipline in the service and efficiency
of public service. It would, therefore, be
expedient that the disciplinary proceedings are
conducted and completed as expeditiously as
possible. It is not, therefore, desirable to lay
down any guidelines as inflexible rules in which
the departmental proceedings may or may not be
stayed pending trial in criminal case against the
delinquent officer. Each case requires to be
considered in the backdrop of its own facts and
circumstances. There would be no bar to
proceed
simultaneously
with
departmental
enquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the
charge in the criminal trial is of grave nature
involving complicated questions of fact and law.
Offence generally implies infringement of public
duty, as distinguished from mere private rights
punishable under criminal law. When trial for
criminal offence is conducted it should be in
accordance with proof of the offence as per the
evidence defined under the provisions of the
Indian Evidence Act 1872 (in short "the
Evidence Act"). Converse is the case of
departmental enquiry. The enquiry in a
departmental proceedings relates to conduct or
breach of duty of the delinquent officer, to
punish him for his misconduct defined under the
relevant statutory rules or law. That the strict
standard of proof or applicability of the
Evidence Act stands excluded is a settled legal
position. Under these circumstances, what is
required to be seen is whether the department
enquiry would seriously prejudice the delinquent
in his defence at the trial in a criminal case. It is
always a question of fact to be considered in
each case depending on its own facts and
circumstances."

17. Similar view has been reiterated by the
Apex Court in the case of Noida Entrepreneurs
Association Vs. NOIDA and Others 2007 (2)
ADJ 86 (SC) wherein Apex Court also
considered the long line decisions concerning
conduct
of
departmental
proceeding
and
criminal
proceeding
simultaneously
and
concluded that purpose of the two proceedings
are
totally
different,
therefore,
both
the
proceedings can continue simultaneously as the
departmental
proceeding
is
to
maintain
discipline and efficiency in public service;
criminal proceedings are initiated to punish a
person for committing an offence violating the
public duty.

18. Now, the legal position is well settled
that departmental proceeding and the criminal
proceeding can continue simultaneously as the
object and purpose of the criminal proceeding
and disciplinary proceeding are different and
they operate in a different field. In the
disciplinary proceedings, the rule of the
preponderance
of
probabilities
is
applied
whereas, in the criminal proceeding, the
principle of strict standard of proof beyond a
reasonable doubt is applicable.

19. The nature of evidence in both criminal
and disciplinary proceedings is different. The
only exception to this rule that can be culled out
from the law elucidated by the Apex Court on
11 All. Rinku Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1007
the issue of the continuance of disciplinary
proceeding
and
criminal
proceeding
simultaneously is that disciplinary proceedings
may be stayed where criminal charges against
the delinquent employee are grave and involves
complicated question of facts and law, and
continuance of disciplinary proceeding is likely
to prejudice the defence of the employee before
the criminal court. The gravity of the charge is
not by itself enough to determine the question of
continuance of departmental and criminal
proceedings simultaneously unless the charge
involves complicated questions of law and fact.

20. This Court in the case of Surendra
Singh and Another Vs. State of U.P. and
Another 2012 (2) ADJ 135 (LB) had considered
the scope of Regulations 492 & 493 of Police
Regulation and this Court succinctly explained
the meaning of the word 'has been and held that
expression 'has been' refers to an event which
has already occurred. Paragraphs 21, 27, 28 &
29 of the said judgment are being extracted
herein below:-

"21. Regulation 492 clearly says that where
a police officer "has been judicially tried". The
language is very important. It talks of something
which has already happened. The simple
language of provision shows where a police
officer has been tried judicially and only the
judgment is awaited, in such circumstances and
in interregnum period, the competent authority
should not decide to take further departmental
action but should await the decision. In other
words, Regulation 492 shall be attracted only
when the judicial trial is over but judgment has
not been delivered and it is awaited. The words
"has been" reflect to something which has
performed and accomplished in past and is not
continuing in present. The words "has been"
refer to the state of affairs as existed in past and
it is a present perfect tense. The words "has
been" on a plain grammatical construction
means, without doubt, the existence of past event
i.e. the requisite event has already occurred and
completed. The expression "has been" and its
connotation have been subject of interpretation
before Apex Court and this Court, both, at
several occasions and it would be useful to refer
a few thereof.

27. The above exposition of law clearly
shows that the term "has been" in simple
language means a thing already happened and
here the term "judicially tried" means that police
officer concerned's trial in the court of law is
already complete but the decision is awaited.

28. Similarly Regulation 493 is attracted
when trial is complete and judgment of trial
court has also come, resulting in recording a
finding in favour of police officer. It restrain the
competent authority in such matter to create a
situation where a contrary finding can be
recorded in departmental proceedings vis a vis
court's verdict and the Regulation provides that
such a contingency should not occur hence it
prohibits such a course to be followed by
competent authority.

29. Going by the above discussion it
becomes apparently clear that situation in the
present cases do not attract either Regulation
492 or 493 in both these matters since the only
stage at which the criminal cases proceeding
presently are that a charge sheet has been filed
against petitioners. The petitioners cannot be
said to have undergone judicial trial so far. The
trial is still awaited. For the purpose of
understanding the meaning of word "Trial" one
may simply refer to the provisions of Cr.P.C. and
that would clearly show that an accused can be
said to have tried when evidence by prosecution
and defence has already led and matter has been
argued before trial court. This itself leaves
inescapable conclusion that both these writ
petitions at this stage have to fail."

21. In the light of interpretation given by
this Court in the case of Surendra Singh (supra)
relating to Regulations 492 & 493 of Police
Regulation, this Court finds that submission of
1008 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
learned counsel for the petitioner based upon
Regulations 492 & 493 of Police Regulation is
misplaced and is not sustainable in law, since in
the instant case only charge sheet in the criminal
case has been filed, and trial is yet to begin.

22. Now, coming to the second limb of
argument that whether disciplinary proceeding
and the criminal proceeding can proceed
simultaneously where both proceedings have
been initiated on the same set of charges and
evidence in both the proceedings are identical
and shall prejudice the criminal proceeding since
petitioner would have to disclose the defence
which he wants to take in the criminal
proceeding. In the opinion of the Court, the said
submission is also misconceived for two
reasons; firstly, as detailed above, the charge
against the petitioner in the criminal proceeding
and disciplinary proceeding are not identical as
there is one additional charge in the disciplinary
proceeding which has been delineated above.
Secondly, to succeed, the petitioner has to
demonstrate that charge against the petitioner is
grave and involves complicated questions of fact
and law, and further if the disciplinary
proceeding is continued that would prejudice the
criminal trial of the petitioner.

23. In the case in hand, though a bald
averment has been made in the writ petition in
paragraph 31 that continuance of disciplinary
proceeding would prejudice the criminal trial,
there is no pleading in the writ petition as to how
continuance of disciplinary proceeding would
prejudice the criminal trial of the petitioner.

24. As the petitioner has failed to
demonstrate that charge against the petitioner is
grave and involves complicated questions of fact
and law, and further how the continuance of
disciplinary proceeding would prejudice the
criminal trial of the petitioner, this Court is not
inclined to accept the aforesaid submission of
learned counsel for the petitioner. At this stage,
it is pertinent to mention that early conclusion of
the disciplinary proceeding is good in the
interest of the employee as well as the
department for the reason that if the employee is
exonerated from the charges, he may not be out
of service unnecessarily and may be reinstated,
and if the employee is found guilty, the
department will get rid of such employee who is
not worth continuing in the employment.

25. Thus, for the reasons given above, the
writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly,
dismissed with no order as to costs.
----------
(2021)12ILR A1008
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.11.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J

Writ-A No. 15656 of 2021

Manbir Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Siddharth Khare, Sri Ashok Kumar Khare (Sr. Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Disciplinary Proceeding -
Pension - U.P. Government Servants' Conduct
Rules, 1956 - Rule 29 - A plain reading of
Rule 29 reveals that a Government servant
cannot marry again without permission of
the state Government. The legislature to
their
wisdom
has
used
the
word
"notwithstanding" which means, even if the
marriage is permissible under personal law
for
the
time
being
applicable
to
a
Government
servant,
such
Government
servant cannot be allowed to marry again
without permission of the state Government.
(Para 19)