Jharkhand High Court

Sanjay Nishad vs Bharat Coking Coal Limited Through Its ... on 9 September, 2025

Author: Rajesh Shankar

Bench: Rajesh Shankar

                                              2025:JHHC:27190-DB




IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
            L.P.A. No. 462 of 2025
Sanjay Nishad, aged about 46 years, Son of Late Harimullah, Resident
of Block NO. 24, Qr. No. 278, Murlinagar, P.S. Saraidhela, P.O.-
B.C.C.L. Township, Koyla Nagar, District-Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
                                      ...  ...    Appellant
                           Versus
1. Bharat Coking Coal Limited through its Chairman cum Managing
Director, having its office at Koyla Bhawan, P.O. and P.S. Saraidhela,
District Dhanbad.
2. General Manager, Bharat Coking Coal Limited Bastacolla Area-IX,
P.O. and P.S. Dhansar, District-Dhanbad.
3. The Project Officer, Bharat Coking Coal Limited Dobari Colliery,
Bastacolla Area-IX, P.O. and P.S. Dhansar, District-Dhanbad.
                                 ...  Respondents
                           With
                    L.P.A. No. 463 of 2025
BHUTESHWAR PRASAD SHAW, aged about 37 years, son of Late
Mahabir Shaw, resident of village- Kasiatand, P.O. Kalyanpur P.S.
Barbadda, District Dhanbad (Jharkhand) ...         ...   Appellant
                           Versus
1. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd through its Chairman-cum-Managing
Director, having its office at Koyala Bhawan, PO. and P.S. Saraidhela,
District Dhanbad.
2. The General Manager (P & IR), Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, having its
office at Koyala Bhawan, P.O. and P.S. Saraidhela, District Dhanbad.
3. The General Manager (P & IR), Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, East
Basuria Colliery, Kusunda Area, P.O. and P.S. Kusunda, District
Dhanbad.
4. The Disciplinary Authority-cum-Project Officer, East Basuria Colliery,
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Kusunda Area, P.O. and P.S. Kusunda, District
Dhanbad.                                    ...    Respondents
                           With
                    L.P.A. No. 467 of 2025
NARESH NISHAD, aged about 51 years, Son of Shri Prakash Mallah,
Resident of Kusum Vihar, Koyla Nagar, P.O Koyla Nagar P.S.
Saraidhella District Dhanbad, Jharkhand. ...        ...  Appellant
                           Versus
1. Bharat Coking Coal Limited through its Chairman cum Managing
Director, having its office at Koyla Bhawan, P.O. and P.S. Saraidhela,
District Dhanbad, (Jharkhand).
2. The General Manager, Lodna Area, Bharat Coking Coal Limited,
Lodna, PO Bhaga, P.S Jharia, District Dhanbad (Jharkhand).
                                         ...  Respondents
                           ---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
                           ---------
For the Appellant(s)       : Mr. Sudarshan Srivastava, Advocate
                              Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents        : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta

                         -1 of 20-
                                                 2025:JHHC:27190-DB




                         Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate.
                         Mr. Shivam Utkarsh Sahay, Advocate.
                         Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
                         Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate.
                      ---------
C.A.V. On: 01.09.2025              Pronounced On: 09.09.2025
Per Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.

1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone

through the materials available on record.

2. The moot question in all these appeals, which arises out of a

common judgment rendered by the writ Court is whether the criminal

case and the departmental proceedings against the petitioner(s)-

appellant(s) can be permitted to continue simultaneously. The learned

writ Court held that preventing the respondents from passing final

orders in the departmental proceedings in the backdrop of delay in

finalizing of the criminal case could not be in the interest of justice and

accordingly dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants herein.

3. The facts of each of the case are enumerated in brief as

under:-

5. The appellant was appointed as Miner Loader on 18.8.2000 at

Dobari Colliery of Bastacolla area.

6. The appellant was thereafter transferred to Ena colliery on the

post of Dispatch clerk and has been working in the said post since

then.

7. During the service period of the appellant a criminal case was

instituted against the appellant vide FIR No. RC Case No.01(A)/2018-

D, dated 29.1.18 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

alleging therein that the appellant had demanded an illegal

-2 of 20- 2025:JHHC:27190-DB

gratification of Rs.5000/- from the Complainant for furnishing details

of contribution of Provident Fund etc. to him in respect of his father

Rupa Bauri, the then support Mazdoor of Dobari colliery under

Bastacolla area of Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad. It is further

alleged that the appellant had demanded Rs.3000/- as first

installment of bribe of the total number of amount of Rs.5000/- for

furnishing the details of the said Provident Fund contribution.

8. The CBI had submitted a charge sheet dated 26.3.18 under

sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act.

9. The appellant had been granted anticipatory bail by this Court

vide order dated 9.5.2018.

10. The appellant was put under suspension vide letter dated

19.4.18 by Project Officer, Dobari colliery.

11. Thereafter the appellant was served with Article of Charges

vide memo Ref. No. D/IX/18/87, dated 12.6.2018, wherein the

appellant was supplied with the article of charges alleging therein that

the appellant while posted as Provident Fund clerk in the office of

Project Officer, Dobarı Colliery, Bastacolla committed a grave

misconduct as much as demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.2000/-

from Mr. Subhash Bauri/Complainant for furnishing the details of

Provident fund, pension contribution with additional increment etc., in

respect of his father Sri Rupa Bauri, support Mazdoor and on the

basis of the said Memorandum, Departmental proceeding was

initiated against the appellant.

12. Thereafter the Departmental Proceeding continued against the

appellant and the appellant regularly attended the departmental

-3 of 20- 2025:JHHC:27190-DB

proceeding which is evident from the Minutes of the Departmental

Proceeding dated 26.3.18 and 12 6.18. The departmental proceeding

is still in way and the appellant is regularly attending the proceeding.

13. That the said departmental proceeding is illegal and devoid of

merits.

14. That from perusal of Annexure-1, it will be evident that the

prosecution in total has examined altogether 18 witnesses and have

also examined 20 documents connected to the present criminal

proceeding. Further the prosecution has relied upon 20 lists of

material objects and exhibits in connection with RC No. 01(A)/2018-

15. That from perusal of the impugned memorandum, it would be

evident that in the departmental proceeding as much as seven

documents have been relied upon which also forms the part of first

information report. Also, the departmental proceeding under the list of

witnesses there are seven witnesses that have been examined which

would also form part of the first information report.

16. That from the perusal of the memorandum, it would be evident

that from the similar sets of facts and allegation to the extent that the

appellant had demanded illegal gratification for furnishing the details

of the provident fund, Pension Contribution with additional increment

with respect to the father of the complainant Sri Rupa Bauri.

17. That from perusal of both the articles of charge and the first

information report, it would be evident that there are similar set of

facts and allegations which has formed part of memorandum of the

same as against the law and judicial pronouncements.

-4 of 20- 2025:JHHC:27190-DB

18. That the appellant made a representation dated 8.5.19 before

the concerned authorities for staying of the departmental proceeding

and the same has not been replied by the concerned authorities till

date.

20. That the appellant was appointed on the post of General

Mazdoor on 02.04.2010 in Basuria Colliery and was continuing with

his employment under Bharat Coking Coal Ltd (hereinafter referred to

as "BCCL" in short).

21. That in the year 2015 the appellant was appointed on the post

of Clerk after following due process of law in Basuria Colliery with

respondent-BCCL and thereafter the appellant was honestly and

diligently performing his duties.

22. That in the year 2020, an F.I.R. dated 12.05.2020, being

CBI/DNB Case No. RC-3(A)/2020(D) was registered under Section 7

of the Prevention of Corruption Act, for the allegation that the

appellant demanded gratification of Rs.25,000/- from the complainant

and during verification, the appellant being an accused in the F.I.R.,

agreed to accept illegal gratification of Rs. 10,000/- as first installment

of total demanded bribe of Rs.25,000/-.

23. That thereafter the appellant was taken into custody on

13.05.2020 and the appellant accordingly moved before this Court for

grant of bail at subsequent stage of litigation vide B.A. No. 4111/2020

and vide order dated 22.09.2020 passed by this Court, the appellant

was granted bail and released from custody.

24. That thereafter the prosecution in the criminal case against the

appellant submitted charge sheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C. for the

-5 of 20- 2025:JHHC:27190-DB

offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act enclosing list of witnesses,

documents, material objects and original sanction of prosecution.

25. That after the appellant was taken into custody on 13.5.2020, a

letter was issued from Respondent No.4, putting the appellant under

suspension with effect from 13.5.2020. However, suspension of the

appellant was revoked on 06.04.2021 and thereafter the appellant

gave his joining before the respondent-authority on 07.04.2021.

26. That thereafter the appellant was served with Memo of charges

contained in reference no. 236 dated 04.01.2021 containing articles

of charges, description of documents and details of witnesses.

Further, by the said letter the appellant was directed to file reply to

the show cause to the allegations within fifteen days from the date of

receipt of said Memo of charges.

27. That in pursuance to direction contained in reference no. 236

dated 04.01.2021, the appellant submitted his reply to the said Memo

of charges on 16.01.2021 and requested the concerned respondent

to provide/supply him documents pertaining to the Memorandum of

charges and departmental proceeding.

28. That in response to request made by the appellant, the

appellant was served with letter dated 29.01.2021 contained in

reference no. 254, by which the appellant was directed to file his

reply within seven days as earlier reply filed by the appellant to the

Memorandum of charges vide letter dated 04.01.2021 was not

satisfactory.

29. That thereafter the appellant in response to letter contained in

reference No. 254 dated 29.01.2021 made representation before the

respondent, inter-alia requesting the respondents to provide list of

-6 of 20- 2025:JHHC:27190-DB

documents, statement of imputation annexed along with

Memorandum of charges contained in reference no. 236 dated

04.01.2021.

30. That the appellant was served with office order contained in

reference no. 1515 dated 23.3.2021 issued by respondent No.4

whereby and where under the respondent decided to initiate

departmental enquiry for the allegations levelled against the

appellant, Memorandum of charges dated 04.01.2021 and Shri

A.K.Dubey, General Manager (EXCV), Kusunda Area was appointed

as Enquiry Officer.

31. That in response to letter no. 1551 dated 23.3.2021 the

appellant submitted representation before the respondent, inter-alia,

requesting the authority to stay the departmental proceeding till the

final outcome of the criminal case launched against the appellant as

the same is based on the same set of facts between the

departmental proceeding and criminal case.

32. That initiation of departmental proceeding is based upon

similar facts contained in the F.I.R. and charge sheet.

33. That from perusal of the Memorandum of Charges contained in

reference no. 236 dated 4.1.2021, it will be evident that the allegation

levelled against the appellant is that while he was posted and

functioning as Clerk of Basuria Colliery, Kusunda Area, he committed

grave misconduct by demanding bribe of Rs.25,000/- and accepting

bribe of Rs.10,000/- as first installment from Shri Dwarika Mandal son

of Khirodhar Mandal, Retd. Line Helper of East Basuria Colliery for

processing his claim, such as P.F, Pension, gratuity etc. after his

superannuation and was arrested by C.B.I. for his cognizable offence

-7 of 20- 2025:JHHC:27190-DB

punishable under Section 7 of P.C. Act, 2018. Thus, by the above

act, the appellant failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to

duty and committed misconduct under clause 26.1.3 of the certified

Standing orders applicable for the workmen of establishment under

B.C.C.L.

35. That the appellant was appointed as Minor Loader on

24.7.1995 under Respondents and is presently working as Assistant

Revenue Inspector, Lodna Area office in the district of Dhanbad.

36. That a criminal case was instituted against the appellant vide FIR

No. RC-02(A)/2018-D dated 05.02.2018 under Section 7 of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demand of illegal gratification

of Rs.5000/-from the complainant of the F.I.R. for putting up and

processing land acquisition claim etc. of the complainant namely Shri

Sudam Deo.

37. That it is stated that after lodging of F.I.R. and institution of

Criminal case, the appellant was taken into custody and thereafter,

series of litigation took place and finally, the appellant was released

on bail vide order dated 16.5.2018 passed by this Court in B.A.

No.3345 of 2018.

38. That it is stated that in the said R.C. case No. 02(A)/2018-D,

charge sheet dated 26.3.2018 was drawn under Section-7 and 13(ii)

read with Section 13(i) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

39. That soon after lodging of criminal case and arrest of the

appellant, the appellant was put under suspension vide reference

letter no. 1245 dated 06.02.2018 by the Additional General Manager,

Lodna Area, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. stating therein that the

-8 of 20- 2025:JHHC:27190-DB

appellant has committed offence under Clause - 27(2) (i) of the

Certified Standing Order and thereby, is liable to be put under

suspension.

40. That subsequently suspension of the appellant was revoked on

09.03.2018 and the appellant was allowed to continue in the service.

However, vide letter contained in Memo No. 388 dated 26-27/6.2018

Memorandum of charges were drawn and served against the

appellant.

41. That from perusal of Memorandum of charges dated 26-

27/6/2018 it would be evident that it was alleged against the appellant

that the appellant while being posted and functioning as Assistant

Revenue Inspector of the Establishment-Department in the office of

General Manager, Lodna area committed grave misconduct as much

has demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.5,000/- from Shri Sudam

Deo (complainant) for processing compensation of his land for mining

activity by BCCL at Tisra Colliery, Lodna Area. Thus, by the above

act, the appellant failed to maintain absolute integrity and committed

misconduct under Clause- 26(i)(xxiii) of the Certified Standing Orders

applicable for workman of establishment under BCCL.

42. That from memorandum as contained in Memo no. 388 dated

26-27/6/2018 (Annexure-5), the appellant was also directed to submit

his written statement of defence on specified date failing which

necessary orders may be issued in pursuance of enquiry against the

appellant ex-parte.

43. That in compliance to said direction contained in said memo

no.388 dated 26-27/6/2018, the appellant submitted his response and

-9 of 20- 2025:JHHC:27190-DB

made statement of defence refuting all the charges against him and

gave necessary clarification for him being innocent.

44. That vide reference no. 360 dated 13-15/04/2019, Shri U.C.

Gupta, Chief Manager, Mining, Lodna Area, was appointed enquiry

officer to enquire into the allegations made in office Memo no. 388

dated 26-27/06/2018.

45. That said departmental proceeding was initiated against the

appellant and the appellant was directed to appear before the inquiry

officer on 18.6.2019 to present his case. The said communication has

been forwarded to the appellant vide reference no. 304 dated

31.5.2019.

46. That in compliance to direction contained in reference no. 304

dated 31.5.2019, the appellant appeared before the Inquiry officer

where he was handed over series of documents which is to be relied

upon by the inquiry officer during the course of departmental

proceeding.

47. That from perusal of FIR, Annexure-5 and 8, it would be

evident that all the documents that have been relied upon by the

Department in the Departmental Proceeding, forms part in the FIR.

48. That Inquiry officer as well as the Department has picked and

considered exactly same set of documents in the Memo of charges

as well as list of documents that was handed over to the appellant

vide minutes of departmental proceeding dated 18.6.2019, which are

also part of FIR and criminal case launched against the appellant.

49. It is vehemently contended by learned counsel for the

appellants that the departmental enquiry and the criminal

proceedings cannot continue at the same time and therefore, the

-10 of 20- 2025:JHHC:27190-DB

disciplinary proceedings ought to be stayed till the outcome of the

criminal proceedings. Strong reliance has been placed on the

judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited v. Girish v. and others

reported in (2014) 3, SCC 36 and more particularly, paragraph 19

thereof. It is further argued that the disciplinary proceedings and

criminal trial cannot continue simultaneously, as held by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Captain M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Coalmines

Limited reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679.

50. However, we find no merit in this contention; in case, the

judgment rendered in Captain M. Paul Anthony (Supra) is minutely

perused, then it would be noticed that it has been specifically held

that departmental proceedings can be resumed and proceeded, even

when they may have been stayed earlier in cases, where the criminal

trial does not make any headway. It shall be apt to reproduce the

relevant observations made in paragraph 14 of the judgment in

Stanzen's case (Supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court after

taking into consideration Paul Anthony's case (Supra) observed as

under:-

"14. In Paul Anthony this Court went a step further to hold that departmental proceedings can be resumed and proceeded even when they may have been stayed earlier in cases where the criminal trial does not make any headway."

51. As a matter of fact, in Stanzen's case (Supra), an identical

question as involved in the instant lis was involved and the Hon'ble

Supreme Court held that the question, as raised in the writ petition

would depend upon whether there is any legal bar to the continuance

of disciplinary proceeding against the employees based on an

-11 of 20- 2025:JHHC:27190-DB

incident, which is also subject matter of criminal case against such

employee. It would also depend upon the nature of the charges in the

criminal case filed against the employee and whether the case

involved complicated questions of law and facts. The possibility of

prejudice to the employees accused in the criminal case on account

of parallel disciplinary inquiry going ahead is another dimension

which will have to be addressed while permitting or staying such

disciplinary inquiry proceeding. It was held that there could not be

any short-cut solution to the problem but it was unequivocally well-

settled and not disputed that there is no legal bar to the conduct of

disciplinary proceedings and a criminal trial simultaneously.

52. At this stage, it has to be remembered that the purpose

underlying departmental proceeding is distinctly different from the

purpose behind prosecution of offenders for commission of offences

by them. While criminal prosecution for an offence is launched for

violation of the duty that the offender owes to the society,

departmental enquiry is aimed at maintaining discipline and efficiency

in service. The difference in the standard of proof and the application

of Rules of evidence to one and inapplicability to the other is also

required to be taken into consideration which makes it abundantly

clear that conceptually disciplinary proceedings and criminal

proceeding operate in different sphere and are intended to serve

distinctly certain purposes.

53. In Karnataka State Road Transport v. M.G. Vithal Rao

reported in (2012) 1 SCC 442, summarized the principles in the

following words :-

-12 of 20- 2025:JHHC:27190-DB

(i) There is no legal bar for both the proceedings to go on simultaneously;

(ii) The only valid ground for claiming that disciplinary proceeding may be stayed, would be to ensure that defence of the employee in criminal case may not be prejudiced. But, even such grounds would be available only in case involving complex questions of facts and law.

(iii) Such defence ought not to be permitted to necessarily delay the departmental proceedings. The interest of the delinquent officer as well as the employer clearly lies in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding.

(iv) Departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously to the criminal trial, except whether both the proceedings are based on same sets of fact and the evidence in both the proceedings is common.

54. Earlier, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Stanzen's case (Supra),

summarized the principles as follows:-

"11. We may also refer to the decision of this Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., where this Court reviewed the case law on the subject to identify the following broad principles for application in the facts and circumstances of a given case: (SCC p. 691, para 22).

"(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

-13 of 20-

2025:JHHC:27190-DB

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, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest."

55. In Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Sarvesh

Joshi reported in (2005) 10 SCC 471, the respondent was charged

with possessing asset disproportionate to his known source of

income. The question was whether disciplinary proceeding should

remain stayed pending a criminal charge being examined by a

competent criminal court allowing the appeal of the employer

Corporation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-

"8. So, a 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 a grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law. Under these circumstances, what is required to be seen is whether the

-14 of 20- 2025:JHHC:27190-DB

departmental 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."

(emphasis supplied)

56. The legal position was summed up by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Stanzen's case (Supra) as follows:-

"13. It is unnecessary to multiply decisions on the subject for the legal position as emerging from the above pronouncements and the earlier pronouncements of this Court in a large number of similar cases is well settled that disciplinary proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously in the absence of any legal bar to such simultaneity. It is also evident that while seriousness of the charge leveled against the employees is a consideration, the same is not by itself sufficient unless the case also involves complicated questions of law and fact. Even when the charge is found to be serious and complicated questions of fact and law that arise for consideration, the court will have to keep in mind the fact that departmental proceedings cannot be suspended indefinitely or delayed unduly."

57. In Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Rabindra Kumar Bharti

reported in (2022) 12 SCC 390, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed

as under:-

"13. We would notice that this is a case where there is a criminal case against the respondent. The appellant(s) as employer also launched disciplinary proceedings. It is undoubtedly true that this Court has taken the view that when the charges are identical and give rise to complicated issues of fact and law and evidence is the same, it may not be appropriate to proceed simultaneously in disciplinary proceedings, along with the criminal case. The rationale behind the principle largely is that the employee who is facing the disciplinary proceeding would necessarily have to take a stand. This in turn would amount to revealing his defence and therefore prejudice the employee in the criminal proceedings. No doubt, this Court has laid down that it is not an absolute embargo

-15 of 20- 2025:JHHC:27190-DB

and the principle is one to be applied based on the facts of each case.

14. Even applying the principles as such to the facts, that is, examining its impact on the destiny of this case, we find as follows: When the respondent was faced with the disciplinary proceeding, he approached the High Court. Apparently, he sought stay of the proceedings. The High Court did not deem it appropriate to grant stay of the disciplinary proceeding. Instead, as noticed by us by order dated 29-6-2017, the proceedings were allowed to be continued. According to the appellant(s) proper enquiry was held and the respondent participated. As to whether the enquiry was held properly or not is not a matter on which we do express our opinion. However, at the end of the enquiry as held by the appellant in view of the order [Rabindra Kumar Bharti v. Eastern Coalfields Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine Cal 3460] passed by the High Court the appellant sought permission to pass the final order, or the appropriate order of penalty. This led to the disposal of the writ petition itself by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge in the judgment noticed that this is a case where the respondent had already revealed his defence by participating in the proceedings. It is further found that order dated 29-6-2017, which permitted the enquiry to be continued was not challenged. The learned Single Judge accordingly permitted the disciplinary proceedings to attain finality at the hands of the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority accordingly passed an order dismissing the respondent from service. No doubt this is during the pendency of the appeal.

15. In the appeal, the order of the disciplinary authority dismissing the respondent was not the subject-matter of challenge by way of an amendment in the writ petition. The Division Bench has posed the question as to what would happen if the criminal trial culminates in acquittal and it is thereafter that the High Court deemed it appropriate also apparently with reference to its power under Order 41 Rule 33 to pass the order keeping in abeyance the order of dismissal and it was to become operative upon the criminal trial going against the respondent.

-16 of 20- 2025:JHHC:27190-DB

16. We would notice that what is most pertinent is the aspect that in the challenge in the writ petition against the holding of the disciplinary proceedings, obtaining of an interim order in the nature of the case was of relevance and importance to the question at hand. The principle involved being that when parallel proceedings are held on the basis of identical charges and the same evidence, the employee should not be allowed to disclose his defence. This aspect of the matter is to be looked into with reference to the effect of the order dated 29-6-2017.

17. As a result of the said order passed during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent had allegedly participated in the enquiry and there would be no scope for applying that principle as such. In such circumstances, we think that the High Court may not have been justified in passing the impugned order [Rabindra Kumar Bharti v. Eastern Coalfields Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine Cal 3460] the result of which is that though the appellant(s) conducted the disciplinary proceeding as permitted by the learned Single Judge and the respondent allegedly participated in it and all that remained was passing of an order by the disciplinary authority and what is more during the pendency of the appeal no doubt the order of dismissal has been passed, the appellant is forced to retain the respondent and the order is to remain in suspended animation to attain finality only if the criminal case is decided in the future and it ends in the conviction of the respondent. We do not think that the High Court was justified in passing such an order in the facts of this case.

Emphasis Supplied

58. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it needs to be noticed

that when the facts of the instant case are considered in the light of

the aforesaid exposition of law, it would be noticed that in all the

cases charges of grave misconduct of demanding and accepting

bribe having leveled against all the appellants which obviously relates

to the integrity of the individual and the charges relating to their

discharge (of duties) in the respondent-Company.

-17 of 20- 2025:JHHC:27190-DB

59. Therefore, keeping the departmental proceedings pending only

on account of the criminal proceedings having not reached the logical

end is clearly against the public interest and an identical issue came

up recently before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Food Corporation

of India v. Harish Prakash Hinunia passed in Civil Appeal No.3586

of 2025 decided on 05th March, 2025 where departmental

proceedings had been initiated against the respondents was involved

in a trap case whether the payment of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One

lakh only) meant for him was recovered. Therein, the respondent

submitted that the charges were identical in both the criminal case

and the proposed departmental enquiry and based on this defence,

the High Court directed the appellants therein not to proceed with the

departmental proceedings. Aggrieved by the judgment, the Food

Corporation of India approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the matter held that

preventing the appellants from initiating the departmental

proceedings would not be proper as the charge is serious and relates

to various discharge of duties and functions of the respondent therein

in the appellant-Corporation. We shall have to reproduce the relevant

observations as contained in paragraphs 3 to 7 of the judgment,

which reads as under:-

"3. The appellants are aggrieved by the impugned order inasmuch as it has prevented the appellants from initiating a departmental proceeding against the respondent who was involved in a trap case where the payment of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) meant for him, has been recovered.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that only on the ground that there is a substantive criminal case pending, till the disposal of the same, the appellants should not initiate any

-18 of 20- 2025:JHHC:27190-DB

departmental proceeding against the respondent. Learned counsel submitted that in the present facts of the case, the High Court has relied upon judgments which do not completely bar the departmental proceedings to go on simultaneously to the criminal trial while ensuring that the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced. It was submitted that same are distinguishable inasmuch as they only state that it is desirable to keep the departmental proceeding pending where there is a criminal case pending but the distinguishing factor here is that it relates to integrity of the individual and the charges are relating to his discharge of duties in the appellant-Corporation. Thus, it was submitted that the respondent not being proceeded departmentally is against the public interest also for a person who has been charged of financial irregularity and accepting bribe is made to continue in the organisation without the employer having the right to even initiate the departmental proceeding.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the charges were identical in both the criminal case and the proposed departmental inquiry and thus, the High Court has rightly directed the appellants not to proceed with departmental proceeding. Further, he submitted that one charge was different in the criminal case and with regard to that the High Court has permitted them to proceed with the departmental proceeding but even after a long gap of time, no such proceeding has been initiated.

6. Having considered the matter, we find that in the present facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the High Court is not justified. The respondent is said to have been the beneficiary of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) as bribe and for that, criminal case was instituted and departmental proceeding was proposed. Thus, preventing the appellants from initiating the departmental proceeding would not be proper as the charge is serious and relates to the very discharge of the duties and functions of the respondent in the appellant-Corporation.

7. For the reasons aforesaid, the Civil Appeal is allowed. The order of the High Court is set aside. The appellants are free to initiate the departmental proceeding against the respondent of charges for which the department proceeding was proposed and

-19 of 20- 2025:JHHC:27190-DB

also issued. Needless to say that the criminal proceeding shall be decided strictly on the basis of evidence adduced before the Court."

60. Since the appellants herein are said to have been beneficiaries

of bribe and for that criminal case has been instituted and

departmental proceedings are on the verge of conclusion, we are of

the considered view that preventing the respondents from finalizing

the departmental proceedings would not be proper as the charge is

serious and relates to the very discharge of the duties and functions

of the appellant(s) in the respondent-Corporation. The question of law

is answered accordingly.

61. Accordingly, we find no merit in these appeals. These appeals

are dismissed leaving the parties to bear the cost.

62. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.)