Madhya Pradesh High Court
Upendra Singh Bhadoriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17944
1 WP-32236-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 14th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 32236 of 2025
UPENDRA SINGH BHADORIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri K.K. Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Parashar- learned Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.
ORDER
1. The petitioner has invoked Article 226 of Constitution of India by
filing this petition praying for a direction to the respondents to keep the
departmental enquiry in abeyance till the outcome of criminal case. He has
also prayed for a direction to the respondents to allow him to work on his
post as earlier to initiation of departmental proceedings.
2. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the petitioner
was working as Constable in D Company, 26 th Battalion, S.A.F. at Guna. A
meeting was scheduled on 20.02.2025 to discuss the issue of management of
the mess. The petitioner alongwith another Constable Surendra Singh
Ahirwar remained absent in meeting. Their absence was recorded in
Rojnamcha Sanha. On the next day i.e. on 21.02.2025, an information was
received from the office of Superintendent of Police, Guna that the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17944
2 WP-32236-2025
petitioner and Surendra Singh Ahirwar have been arrested on 20.02.2025 in
connection with offence punishable under Section 8/20, 39 of NDPS Act and
a criminal case has been registered against them. The petitioner was
produced before Special Court (NDPS) and was initially send on Police
remand upto 24.02.2025. Thereafter, he was sent in judicial custody. The
investigation in the matter is going on. The FIR registered against the
petitioner on 20.02.2025 has been placed on record as Annexure P/2.
3. On receiving the information from S.P. Office, the petitioner was
placed under suspension on 21.02.2025 itself. A charge sheet is issued to the
petitioner on 28.03.2025 (Annexure P/1). Later on, the petitioner's
suspension has been revoked vide order, dated 17.04.2025.
4. The petitioner is thus facing departmental enquiry pursuant to
charge sheet dated 28.03.2025 and a criminal investigation pursuant to FIR,
dated 20.02.2025. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both
the aforesaid proceedings are in relation to one and the same incident. He
submitted that both the proceedings are based upon similar charges and
charges are required to be proved by same witnesses. He also submitted that
in departmental enquiry, the petitioner is required to disclose his defense and
that is allowed, he would suffer serious prejudice in the criminal case. He
also submitted that complex questions of facts and law are involved in the
matter and, therefore, the departmental enquiry should be kept in abeyance
till decision in criminal case. In support of his submission, he placed reliance
upon judgment rendered by coordinate bench of this court in the case of
Harish Chandra Hinunia vs. Food Corporation of India & ors. in W.P.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17944
3 WP-32236-2025
No.453 of 2022.
5. The learned counsel for respondents on advance notice, opposes the
prayer made by petitioner's counsel. He submitted that the allegations made
against the petitioner in the charge sheet are entirely different than the one
being investigated in the criminal case. He also submitted that there is no
absolute bar in continuing departmental proceedings simultaneously with the
criminal case. It is his submission that the criminal case is still under
investigation and the ultimately conclusion will take sufficiently long time
and, therefore, the departmental enquiry cannot be kept in abeyance for
indefinite period. The learned counsel also submitted that looking to the
charges leveled against the petitioner in the charge sheet, no prejudice is
going to be caused to the petitioner if the enquiry is continued
simultaneously with criminal investigation/trial. He, thus, prayed for
dismissal of this petition.
6. Considered the arguments on admission.
7. As per the FIR, dated 21.02.2025, the petitioner is alleged to have
committed offence punishable under Section 8/20, 39 of NDPS Act. The
investigation in relation to the same is going on. On the other hand, in the
charge sheet, dated 28.03.2025, following charges are levelled against him:
"(1) वा हनी मु यालय म िश ण ा कर रह ड कंपनी म तैनाती के दौरान
दनांक 20-02-2025 समय 19:00 बजे ली गई रा गणना म बगैर कसी सूचना के
कत य से अनुप थत होकर घोर अनुशासनह नता दिशत करना।
(2) आपरािधक घटना का रत करने के उ े य से जानबूझकर स य कत य से
फरार होना तथा वयं के व पंजीब आपरािधक करण क कोई सूचना वा हनी के
मु य कायालय म न दे कर छुपाने का यास कर गंभीर कदाचरण का रत करना।
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17944
4 WP-32236-2025
(3) वशेष सश बल जैसे अनुशािसत बल म लोकसेवक होते हुये दनांक 24-
02-25 से स कल जेल िशवपुर म वचाराधीन बंद के प म िन रहकर वभाग क
छ व को धूिमल कर वयं को शासक य सेवा के अयो य सा बत करना।
(4) उपरो ानुसार गंभीर कदाचरण का रत कर म िस वल सेवा आचरण
िनयम 1965 के िनयम 3 (एक), (दो), (तीन) एवं म य दे श पुिलस रे यूलेशन के पैरा
64 के उप-पैरा 3, 4 तथा 5 का प उलंघन करना।"
8. The charge no.1 relates to petitioner's absent while counting on
20.02.2025 at 19:00. The second charge relate to petitioner's remaining
absent from active duty in order to commit offence and to conceal the
factum of registration of criminal case to the Company. The third charge
relate to tarnishing image of the department by remaining in custody from
24.02.2025 being a public servant and a member of disciplined force.
Further, the fourth charge relate to committing misconduct within the
meaning of Rule 3(1), (2) & (3) of M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules,
1965 and Para 64(3), (4) & (5) of M.P. Police Regulations by committing
aforesaid act.
9. It is settled legal proposition that a departmental enquiry and
criminal trial can go on simultaneously. The Apex Court judgment in the
case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. T. Srinivas reported in (2004) 7
SCC 442 can be profitably referred to in this regard wherein the Apex Court
held in para 11 as under :-
"11. In the instant case, from the order of the Tribunal
as also from the impugned order of the High Court, we
do not find that the two forums below have considered
the special facts of this case which persuaded them to
stay the departmental proceedings. On the contrary, a
reading of the two impugned orders indicates that both
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17944
5 WP-32236-2025
the Tribunal and the High Court proceeded as if a
departmental enquiry had to be stayed in every case
where a criminal trial in regard to the same misconduct
is pending. Neither the Tribunal nor the High Court did
take into consideration the seriousness of the charge
which pertains to acceptance of illegal gratification and
the desirability of continuing the respondent in service
in spite of such serious charges levelled against him.
This Court in the said case of State of Rajasthan [(1996)
6 SCC 417 : 1996 SCC 1455] has further observed that
the approach and the objective in the criminal
proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings is
altogether distinct and different. It held that in the
disciplinary proceedings the question is whether the
respondent is guilty of such conduct as would merit his
removal from service or a lesser punishment, as the case
may be, whereas in the criminal proceedings the
question is whether the offences registered against him
are established and, if established, what sentence should
be imposed upon him. The Court in the above case
further noted that the standard of proof, the mode of
enquiry and the rules governing the enquiry and trial in
both the cases are distinct and different. On that basis,
in the case of State of Rajasthan [(1996) 6 SCC 417 :
1996 SCC 1455] the facts which seem to be almost
similar to the facts of this case, held that the Tribunal
fell in error in staying the disciplinary proceedings."
10. Again, in the case of Indian Overseas Bank Vs. P. Ganesan
reported in (2008)1 SCC 650 considered the similar issue and held
thus:
"23. The High Court, unfortunately, although it noticed
some of the binding precedents of the Court failed to
apply the law in its proper perspective. The High Court
was not correct in its view in concluding that the stay of
the departmental proceedings should be granted in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case without
analysing and applying the principle of law evolved in
the aforementioned decisions. It, therefore, misdirected
itself in law. What was necessary to be noticed by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17944
6 WP-32236-2025
the High Court was not only existence of identical facts
and the evidence in the matter, it was also required to
take into consideration the question as to whether the
charges levelled against the delinquent officers, both in
the criminal case as also the in disciplinary proceedings,
were same. Furthermore it was obligatory on the part of
the High Court to arrive at a finding that the non-stay of
the disciplinary proceedings shall not only prejudice the
delinquent officers but the matter also involves a
complicated question of law.
24. The standard of proof in a disciplinary proceedings
and that in a criminal trial is different. If there are
additional charges against the delinquent officers
including the charges of damaging the
property belonging to the Bank which was not the
subject-matter of allegations in a criminal case, the
departmental proceedings should not have been stayed.
25. Furthermore Respondents 1 to 4 have now moved
the High Court for quashing of the order taking
cognizance of offence against them in the criminal
proceedings. The criminal proceedings have been
stayed. Thus, even applying the principle laid down
in Capt. M. Paul Anthony [(1999) 3 SCC 679 : 1999
SCC (L&S) 810] the impugned judgment cannot be
sustained. Before the High Court no contention was
raised that because Respondents 1 to 4 are office-
bearers of a trade union, the authorities were biased
against them. Nothing has been shown that any
complicated question of law arose for determination in
the criminal case."
11. The issue is again considered by Apex Court in the case of SBI v.
Neelam Nag reported in (2016) 9 SCC 491 wherein the Court held as under
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17944
7 WP-32236-2025
:-
"13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties
at some length. The only question that arises for
consideration is no more res integra. It is well settled
that there is no legal bar to the conduct of the
disciplinary proceedings and criminal trial
simultaneously. However, no straitjacket formula can
be spelt out and the Court has to keep in mind the broad
approach to be adopted in such matters on case-to-case
basis. The contour of the approach to be adopted by the
Court has been delineated in a series of decisions.
14. This Court in Karnataka SRTC v. M.G. Vittal
Rao [Karnataka SRTC v. M.G. Vittal Rao, (2012) 1
SCC 442 : (2012) 1 SCC (L&S) 171] has summed up
the same in the following words : (SCC pp. 449-50,
paras 16-17)
(i) There is no legal bar for both the
proceedings to go on simultaneously.
(ii) The only valid ground for claiming that
the disciplinary proceedings may be stayed
would be to ensure that the defence of
the employee in the criminal case may not be
prejudiced. But even such grounds would be
available only in cases involving complex
questions of facts or law.
(iii) Such defence ought not to be permitted
to unnecessarily delay the departmental
proceedings. The interest of the delinquent
officer as well as the employer clearly lies in
a prompt conclusion of the
disciplinary proceedings.
(iv) Departmental proceedings can go on
simultaneously to the criminal trial, except
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17944
8 WP-32236-2025
where both the proceedings are based on the
same set of facts and the evidence in both the
proceedings is common.
(emphasis supplied)
15. The recent decision relied on by the
appellant in Stanzen [Stanzen Toyotetsu
India (P) Ltd. v. Girish V., (2014) 3 SCC 636
: (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 641], has adverted to
the relevant decisions [Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Ltd. v. Sarvesh Berry, (2005) 10
SCC 471 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1605; Capt. M.
Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.,
(1999) 3 SCC 679 : 1999 SCC (L&S)
810; A.P. SRTC v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya,
(1997) 2 SCC 699 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 548
and State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena, (1996)
6 SCC 417 :1996 SCC (L&S) 1455]
including M.G. Vittal Rao [Karnataka
SRTC v. M.G. Vittal Rao, (2012) 1 SCC 442
: (2012) 1 SCC (L&S) 171]. After adverting
to those decisions, in para 16, this Court
opined as under: (Stanzen case [Stanzen
Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. v. Girish V., (2014)
3 SCC 636 : (2014) 1 SCC (641], SCC p.
643)
"16. Suffice it to say that while
there is no legal bar to the holding
of the disciplinary proceedings and
the criminal trial simultaneously,
stay of disciplinary proceedings
may be an advisable course in
cases where the criminal charge
against the employee is grave and
continuance of the disciplinary
proceedings is likely to prejudice
their defence before the criminal
court. Gravity of the charge is,
however, not by itself enough to
determine the question unless the
charge involves complicated
question of law and fact. The court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17944
9 WP-32236-2025
examining the question must also
keep in mind that criminal trials
get prolonged indefinitely
especially where the number of
accused arraigned for trial is large
as is the case at hand and so are the
number of witnesses cited by the
prosecution. The court, therefore,
has to draw a balance between the
need for a fair trial to the accused
on the one hand and the competing
demand for an expeditious
conclusion of the ongoing
disciplinary proceedings on the
other. An early conclusion of the
disciplinary proceedings has itself
been seen by this Court to be in the
interest of the employees."
(emphasis supplied)
12. Thus, mere similarity of incident alone is not a ground for stay of
departmental enquiry. Further, gravity of charge alone is also not a ground
for stay unless the charge involves complicated question of law and fact.
13. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal proposition, if the facts of the
present case are seen, the charges levelled against the petitioner in the charge
sheet are entirely different than the one being investigated in the criminal
case. Merely because one of the witness namely complainant in FIR namely
Mr. B.R. Purohit is common witness in both the proceedings, it cannot be
said that the petitioner would suffer any irreparable prejudice if the
departmental enquiry is not stayed. Further, the petitioner has not explained
as to how and what complex questions of fact and law are involved in the
case so as to warrant stay of departmental proceedings.
14. It is also relevant to note here that the petitioner is a member of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17944
10 WP-32236-2025
disciplined force. The charges levelled against him in the enquiry are serious
and, therefore, under the garb of pendency of criminal case, the petitioner
cannot be allowed to prolong the departmental enquiry. It has been the
consistent view of Apex Court that early conclusion of departmental enquiry
is in the interest of both the employer and the employee.
15. In view of discussion made above, this Court does not find it a fit
case to stay the departmental proceedings awaiting conclusion of criminal
case which is in investigation in present. The petitioner has failed to
demonstrate as to what complex questions of law and fact are involved in
departmental enquiry and/or what serious prejudice would be caused to him
if the departmental enquiry is not stayed. Consequently, no indulgence is
warranted in the instant case. The petition therefore, fails and is dismissed in
limine.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
rahul
