Is­sue of charge-sheet against an of­fi­cer against whom an in­ves­ti­gat­ing agency is con­duct­ing in­ves­ti­ga­tion or against whom a charge-sheet has been filed in a court


It has been reaf­firmed in a catena of cases that there is no bar in law for ini­ti­a­tion of si­mul­ta­ne­ous crim­i­nal and de­part­men­tal pro­ceed­ings on the same set of al­le­ga­tions. In State of Ra­jasthan v BK Meena and oth­ers [(1996) 6 SCC 417 - AIR 1997 SC 13 = 1997 (1) LLJ 746 (SC)], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has em­pha­sized the need for ini­ti­at­ing de­part­men­tal pro­ceed­ings in such cases in these words:

It must be re­mem­bered that in­ter­ests of ad­min­is­tra­tion de­mand that the 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 but to keep the ad­min­is­tra­tive ma­chin­ery un­sul­lied by get­ting rid of bad el­e­ments. The in­ter­est of the delin­quent of­fi­cer also lies in a prompt con­clu­sion of the dis­ci­plinary pro­ceed­ings. If he is not guilty of the charges, his hon­our should be vin­di­cated at the ear­li­est pos­si­ble mo­ment and if he is guilty, he should be dealt with promptly ac­cord­ing to law. It is not also in the in­ter­est of ad­min­is­tra­tion that per­sons ac­cused of se­ri­ous mis­de­meanour should be con­tin­ued in of­fice in­def­i­nitely, i.e., for long pe­ri­ods await­ing the re­sult of crim­i­nal pro­ceed­ings.

In Capt M Paul An­thony v Bharat Gold Mines Ltd and an­other [(1999) 3 SCC 679 ], the Supreme Court has ob­served that de­part­men­tal pro­ceed- ings and pro­ceed­ings in a crim­i­nal case can pro­ceed si­mul­ta­ne­ously as there is no bar in their be­ing con­ducted si­mul­ta­ne­ously, though sep­a­rately.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.