LPA-1666-2025 143 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT HC KULWINDER SINGH NO. 886/GGM STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR Present: Mr. for the appellant. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1. Present appeal judgment dated 12.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge. 2. This Court in Haryana and others, decided on 08.05.2024 and found dealing each case, examined length and after having culled out the law departmental proceedings can be allowed to run concurrently with the criminal proceedings; he has thus examined each that the charge sheet issued to following allegations for which the proceedings are required to be co “demanding bribe and not joining the investigation”. be examined in the criminal case and departmental proceedings therefore need not be stayed or stalled during the criminal case. The 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH HC KULWINDER SINGH NO. 886/GGM Vs. HARYANA AND OTHERS **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA **** Mr. S.K. Redhu, Advocate for the appellant. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) Present appeal has been filed by the appellant/writ petitioner against the judgment dated 12.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge. This Court in LPA-1146-2024 titled as ‘ASI Pawan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 08.05.2024 “5. We have carefully considered the submissions and found that the learned Single Judge, has before dealing each case, examined the law governing the issue at length and after having culled out the law departmental proceedings can be allowed to run concurrently with the criminal proceedings; he has thus examined each case on fact. In the present case, we find that the charge sheet issued to the petitioner mentions the following allegations for which the proceedings are required to be co “demanding bribe and not joining the investigation”. 6. This Court is satisfied that the said aspect cannot be examined in the criminal case and departmental proceedings therefore need not be stayed or stalled during the criminal case. The law does not require departmental IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-1666-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.05.2025 . . . . Appellant . . . . Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) has been filed by the appellant/writ petitioner against the judgment dated 12.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge. 2024 titled as ‘ASI Pawan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 08.05.2024, held as under: have carefully considered the submissions that the learned Single Judge, has before the law governing the issue at length and after having culled out the law as to whether departmental proceedings can be allowed to run concurrently with the criminal proceedings; he has thus case on fact. In the present case, we find the petitioner mentions the following allegations for which the departmental proceedings are required to be conducted namely “demanding bribe and not joining the investigation”. 6. This Court is satisfied that the said aspect cannot be examined in the criminal case and departmental proceedings therefore need not be stayed or stalled during law does not require departmental (O&M) .2025 Appellant s has been filed by the appellant/writ petitioner against the 2024 titled as ‘ASI Pawan Kumar vs. State of MOHIT GOYAL 2025.05.29 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1666-2025 proceedings otherwise be stayed. In view of the settled law in reported as 1999 (3) SCC 679 dismissed 3. Keeping in view 4. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. 29.05.2025 Mohit goyal 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? 2. Whether reportable? 2025 (O&M) proceedings otherwise be stayed. In view of the settled law in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat God Mines Ltd.” reported as 1999 (3) SCC 679, the present appeal is dismissed.” Keeping in view above, present appeal stands All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? Yes/No proceedings otherwise be stayed. In view of the settled law Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat God Mines Ltd.” , the present appeal is stands dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MOHIT GOYAL 2025.05.29 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document