Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gouri Shanker Meena vs Food Corporation Of India on 25 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40560
1 WP-20625-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
WRIT PETITION No. 20625 of 2023
ABHISHEK PARE
Versus
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 20626 of 2023
GOURI SHANKER MEENA
Versus
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:-
Shri Sanjay Agarwal - Senior Advocate with Shri Akshay Singh - Advocate for the
Petitioner in the respective cases.
Shri Sanjay K Agarwal - Senior Advocate with Shri Mukesh Kumar Agrawal and
Shri Utkarsh Agrawal - Advocates for the Respondent No.2 in the respective cases.
ORDER
(Reserved on : 18/08/2025)
(Pronounced on :25/08/2025)
Since both these petitions are having identical facts and revolving on
identical grounds, therefore they are being decided by this common order.
2. W.P. No. 20625/2023 has been filed by an employee of Food
Corporation of India who holds the post of Assistant Grade-I (Technical)
while W.P. No. 20626/2023 has been filed by an employee who holds the
post of Assistant Grade-III (Technical) in the said Corporation. Both the
petitioners have been involved in the same criminal case and part of the same
transaction. For the sake of convenience the facts are taken from W.P. No.
20625/2023.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40560
2 WP-20625-2023
3. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners demanded bribe of Rs.
1.05 lac per month from Complainant Om Prakash Chandravanshi and the
said demand was made by the petitioners of these two cases. The said
demand of bribe was thereafter, reduced to Rs. 50,000/- upon negotiation
and part of bribe was received by the petitioner Abhishek Pare. The said
bribe was demanded by getting stock of food grains stored for long period in
the warehouses which are in the name of family members of the
complainant. Abhishek Pare is alleged to have obtained Rs. 10,000/- from
the complainant before he approaching the CBI. Both the petitioners were
then trapped accepting remaining amount of Rs. 40,000/- on 26.4.2023.
They have been chargesheeted in connection with the said criminal case and
trial is going on.
4. When the trap was laid, the bribe money was recovered from the
accused/petitioners.
5. FIR at crime no. RC0082023A0008 was registered by the CBI,
Bhopal on 21.04.2023 and charge sheet was filed before Special Judge (CBI)
Bhopal on 29.06.2023. Thereafter the petitioners have been charge-sheeted
by the Corporation in July 2023 vide Anenxure P/3 consisting two charges.
The ground of the petitioners is that since the charges in the department
proceedings and in the criminal trial are same and similar therefore, in terms
of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Captain M. Paul
Antony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines, 1999 (3) SCC 679 so also in the case of
G.M. Tank Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr. reported in (2006) 5 SCC 446 , the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40560
3 WP-20625-2023
charge sheet has to be quashed because there is commonality of the charges
and witnesses in the department enquiry in criminal trial. Therefore, either
the charge sheet has to be quashed or at least the examination of the common
witnesses in departmental enquiry and criminal trial has to be postponed and
the common witnesses should not be examined in departmental enquiry till
their examination in criminal trial because if the petitioner cross-examines
these witnesses in departmental proceedings prior to they being examine in
criminal case, then the defence of the petitioner in criminal case would be
disclosed and which would jeopardize his case in the criminal proceedings. It
is contended that the accused has a right to remain silent in criminal
proceedings because the standard is strict proof beyond reasonable doubt
whereas in departmental proceedings no such right to remain silent is
available because the standard of proof is preponderance of probability and
therefore, it is contended that the charge-sheet either be quashed or the
examination of the common witnesses be postponed in departmental
enquiry.
6. Per contra, it is contended by learned counsel for respondents that the
departmental enquiry cannot be indefinitely postponed, more so when the
charges are of corruption. Criminal trial would take a long time to be
concluded, till that time the department cannot be expected to postpone the
departmental enquiry. It is further pointed out that the petitioners have been
deliberately delaying the criminal case which is pending since 2023 and
looking to the manner in which the petitioners are delaying the criminal trial,
the conclusion of criminal trial in near future is not possible and the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40560
4 WP-20625-2023
petitioners have taken undue benefit of interim order passed in this case
whereby this Court has stayed the proceedings of the departmental enquiry
vide interim order dated 22.08.2023. A sufficient time has elapsed since the
stay was granted and therefore, no further indulgence should be granted to
the petitioners.
7. Heard.
8. So far as the issue of commonality of the charges in criminal cases and
departmental enquiry is concerned, as already noted above, in the criminal
case allegations are of demand of and acceptance of bribe after trap was laid.
In the departmental enquiry a charge sheet Annexure P/3 has been issued
having two charges. First charge is that of demand and receipt of illegal
gratification from ware-house owner. Second charge is of selection of stock
in non transparent manner with motive to get illegal gratification from ware
house owner. The charges are as under:-
Article No. I: Demand and receipt of illegal gratification from a
Warehouse Owner.
Article No. II; Selection of stocks, offered by State agency of M.P. to
FCI for dispatch to other regions, in a non-transparent manner with
motive to get Illegal gratification from the ware house owners.
9. So far as the charge No. 2 is concerned it relates to motive for
acceptance of bribe which obviously is not in the domain of the criminal case
which is concerned only with demand and acceptance of bribe and therefore,
charge no. 2 has no commonality with the criminal case. However, so far as
charge no. 1 is concerned it relates to demand and receipt of illegal
gratification from the ware house owner and undoubtedly, charge No. 1 is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40560
5 WP-20625-2023
common with the facts to be proved by the prosecution in the criminal trial
and to be rebutted by the petitioners in the criminal trial. Therefore, the same
facts which are to be established in criminal trial are required to be
established in charge No. 1 in the charge sheet.
10. Though the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation has
vehemently argued that there is no commonality of charges but looking to
the contents of the charge-sheet Annexure P/3 and the allegations against the
petitioners in the challan of criminal case Annexure P/2, it is clear that the
charge No. 1 is common to the allegations of the criminal case. When faced
with the situation the learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently
argued that the petitioners have been delaying criminal trial and in the
manner in which the criminal trial is proceeding, early conclusion of trial is
not possible. Reliance was placed on proceedings of criminal trial filed along
with the reply of the respondents.
11. Looking to the order sheet dated 09.02.2024 it is seen that the
petitioners have submitted an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C.
requiring calling mobile tower location of complainant Om Prakash
Chandravanshi so as to rebut the presence of the complainant at the scene of
acceptance of bribe at the alleged place of trap.
12. The trial court has allowed the application and called for the said
information in sealed cover to be produced before the Court. Thereafter on
04.04.2025 tower location of the witnesses Ankesh Chourasia and Vinay
Kaithwar who were trap witnesses has been prayed to be called by moving
an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. and the trial court again directed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40560
6 WP-20625-2023
the said information to be produced before the Court.
13. The petitioners have filed an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C.
to substantiate their defence in the criminal trial and merely because the
petitioners have been exercising their rights under relevant provisions of
Cr.P.C., it cannot be inferred by this Court that the petitioners have been
deliberately delaying the trial. An accused who is taking recourse to rights
given under the law cannot be said to be unduly delaying the trial. However,
looking to the manner in which the trial is proceeding and the nature of
documents being sought by the petitioners to be produced before the trial
court, it can safely be inferred that the conclusion of trial is not a possibility
in near future and it will take long time to conclude the trial. Already two
years have lapsed after presentation of charge-sheet in criminal Court.
14. The learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied on the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Captain M. Paul Antony
Vs. Bharat Gold Mines, 1999 (3) SCC 679 so also in the case of G.M. Tank
Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr. reported in (2006) 5 SCC 446 . This Court has
already come to conclusion that effectively the commonality of charges and
witnesses in the departmental enquiry and criminal trial is there to the extent
of Charge No.1 in Departmental enquiry.
15. The judgment in the case of G.M. Tank (supra) has been subsequently
considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases. Later three
judges Bench of Supreme Court in the case of Shashi Bhushan Prasad Vs.
Inspector General Central Industrial Security Force and others (2019) 7 SCC
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40560
7 WP-20625-2023
797 had the occasion to consider the judgment of G.M. Tank (supra) and
after considering the law on the subject has held as under:-
"19. We are in full agreement with the exposition of law laid down by this
Court and it is fairly well settled that two proceedings criminal and
departmental are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have
different objectives. Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict
appropriate punishment on an offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is
to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in
accordance with the service rules. The degree of proof which is necessary to
order a conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record
the commission of delinquency. Even the rule relating to appreciation of
evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law, burden of
proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, he cannot be convicted by a
court of law whereas in the departmental enquiry, penalty can be imposed on
the delinquent on a finding recorded on the basis of "preponderance of
probability". Acquittal by the court of competent jurisdiction in a judicial
proceeding does not ipso facto absolve the delinquent from the liability under
the disciplinary jurisdiction of the authority. This what has been considered
by the High Court in the impugned judgment [Shashi Bhusan Prasad v. CISF,
2008 SCC OnLine Ori 544 : 2008 Lab IC 3733] in detail and needs no
interference by this Court.
21. It may not be of assistance to the appellant in the instant case for the
reason that the charge levelled against the appellant in the criminal case and
departmental proceedings of which detailed reference has been made were on
different sets of facts and evidence having no nexus/co-relationship. The kind
of criminal act/delinquency which he had committed in discharge of his duties
in the course of employment. That apart, much before the judgment of the
criminal case could be pronounced, the departmental enquiry was concluded
and after the enquiry officer had held him guilty, he was punished with the
penalty of dismissal from service.
22. The judgment in G.M. Tank case [G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat, (2006)
5 SCC 446 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1121] on which the learned counsel for the
appellant has placed reliance was a case where this Court had proceeded on
the premise that the charges in the criminal case and departmental enquiry
are grounded upon the same sets of facts and evidence. This may not be of
any assistance to the appellant as we have observed that in the instant case
the charge in the criminal case and departmental enquiry were different
having no nexus/co-relationship based on different sets of facts and evidence
which has been independently enquired in the disciplinary proceedings and in
a criminal trial and acquittal in the criminal proceedings would not absolve
the appellant from the liability under the disciplinary proceedings instituted
against him in which he had been held guilty and in sequel thereto punished
with the penalty of dismissal from service."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40560
8 WP-20625-2023
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Power Transaction
Corporation Limited Vs. C. Nagaraju and another 2019 (10) SCC 367 has
held in para-11 that benefit can be claimed only if evidence before the
criminal court and the departmental inquiry is exactly the same. In such
circumstances acquittal of the employee by criminal court can be given
weight by the disciplinary authority. It has further been held that acquittal of
employee due to non-availability of any evidence before the criminal court
would not come to rescue of the employee in the matter of dismissal on the
basis of report of enquiry officer before whom there is ample evidence. The
following has been held in para 11 :
"11. Reliance was placed by the High Court on a judgment of this Court
in G.M. Tank [G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat, (2006) 5 SCC 446 : 2006 SCC
(L&S) 1121] whereby the writ petition filed by Respondent 1 was allowed. In
the said case, the delinquent officer was charged for an offence punishable
under Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the PC Act, 1988. He was
honourably acquitted by the criminal court as the prosecution failed to prove the
charge. Thereafter, a departmental inquiry was conducted and he was dismissed
from service. The order of dismissal was upheld [G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat,
2003 SCC OnLine Guj 487] by the High Court. In the appeal filed by the
delinquent officer, this Court was of the opinion that the departmental
proceedings and criminal case were based on identical and similar set of facts.
The evidence before the criminal court and the departmental proceedings being
exactly the same, this Court held that the acquittal of the employee by a
criminal court has to be given due weight by the disciplinary authority. On the
basis that the evidence in both the criminal trial and departmental inquiry is the
same, the order of dismissal of the appellant therein was set aside. As stated
earlier, the facts of this case are entirely different. The acquittal of Respondent
1 was due to non-availability of any evidence before the criminal court. The
order of dismissal was on the basis of a report of the inquiry officer before
whom there was ample evidence against Respondent 1."
17. It is also settled in law that the scope of inquiry in criminal case and in
departmental enquiry is altogether different. The standard of proof in
criminal case is proof beyond reasonable doubt whereas in departmental
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40560
9 WP-20625-2023
proceeding the standard of proof is preponderance of probability.
18. The Supreme Court in the case of Management of Bharat Heavy
Electricals Limited Vs. M.Mani 2018 (1) SCC 285 has held that employee
can seek automatic reversal of dismissal order upon acquittal in criminal case
only in such cases where the dismissal is founded upon conviction in
criminal case. Where dismissal is not founded upon conviction in criminal
case but is founded upon independent domestic inquiry carried out by the
management/ employer, there cannot be any automatic reinstatement. The
following has been held therein:-
"32. The answer to the aforementioned submission lies in the law laid
down by this Court in Karnataka SRTC [Karnataka SRTC v. M.G.
Vittal Rao, (2012) 1 SCC 442 : (2012) 1 SCC (L&S) 171] . At the
cost of repetition, we may say that in the case on hand, the dismissal
orders had not been passed on the basis of employees' conviction by
the criminal court which later stood set aside by the superior court.
Had it been so, then the situation would have been different because
once the conviction order is set aside by the superior court, the
dismissal order which was solely based on passing of the conviction
order also stands set aside. Such was not the case here.
33. In the case on hand, the appellant employer had conducted the
departmental enquiry in accordance with law independently of the
criminal case wherein the enquiry officer, on the basis of the
appreciation of evidence brought on record in the enquiry
proceedings, came to a conclusion that a charge of theft against the
delinquent employees was proved. This finding was based on
preponderance of probabilities and could be recorded by the enquiry
officer notwithstanding the order of criminal court acquitting the
respondents."
19. The Supreme Court in the case of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private
Limited Vs. Girish V. and others reported in(2014) 3 SCC 636 has held as
under:-
"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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40560
10 WP-20625-2023
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 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)
20. The Supreme Court in the case of Shashi Bhushan Prasad v. CISF,
reported in (2019) 7 SCC 797 has held as under :
"17. The scope of departmental enquiry and judicial proceedings and
the effect of acquittal by a criminal court have been examined by a
three-Judge Bench of this Court in A.P. SRTC v. Mohd. YousufMiya.
The relevant paragraph is as under: (SCC pp. 704-05, para 8)
"8....The purpose of departmental enquiry and of
prosecution are two different and distinct aspects. The
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40560
11 WP-20625-2023
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 (sic
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 Evidence Act. Converse is the case of departmental
enquiry. The enquiry in a departmental proceeding 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. The enquiry in the departmental proceedings relates
to the conduct of the delinquent officer and proof in that
behalf is not as high as in an offence in criminal charge. It is
seen that invariably the departmental enquiry has to be
conducted expeditiously so as to effectuate efficiency in
public administration and the criminal trial will take its own
course. The nature of evidence in criminal trial is entirely
different from the departmental proceedings. In the former,
prosecution is to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on
the touchstone of human conduct. The standard of proof in
the departmental proceedings is not the same as of the
criminal trial. The evidence also is different from the
standard point of the Evidence Act. The evidence required in
the departmental enquiry is not regulated by the Evidence
Act. Under these circumstances, what is required to be seen is
whether the 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. In this case,
we have seen that the charge is failure to anticipate the
accident and prevention thereof. It has nothing to do with the
culpability of the offence under Sections 304-A and 338 IPC.
Under these circumstances, the High Court was not right in
staying the proceedings."
(emphasis supplied)
18. The exposition has been further affirmed by a three Judge Bench
of this Court in Ajit Kumar Nag v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. This Court
held as under: (SCC p. 776, para 11)
"11. As far as acquittal of the appellant by a criminal court is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40560
12 WP-20625-2023
concerned, in our opinion, the said order does not preclude
the Corporation from taking an action if it is otherwise
permissible. In our judgment, the law is fairly well settled.
Acquittal by a criminal court would not debar an employer
from exercising power in accordance with the Rules and
Regulations in force. The two proceedings, criminal and
departmental, are entirely different. They operate in different
fields and have different objectives. Whereas the object of
criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on the
offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with
the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in
accordance with the service rules. In a criminal trial,
incriminating statement made by the accused in certain
circumstances or before certain officers is totally inadmissible
in evidence. Such strict rules of evidence and procedure
would not apply to departmental proceedings. The degree of
proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different
from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission
of delinquency. The rule relating to appreciation of evidence
in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law,
burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the
prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused "beyond
reasonable doubt", he cannot be convicted by a court of law.
In a departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be
imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on
the basis of "preponderance of probability". Acquittal of the
appellant by a Judicial Magistrate, therefore, does not ipso
facto absolve him from the liability under the disciplinary
jurisdiction of the Corporation. We are, therefore, unable to
uphold the contention of the appellant that since he was
acquitted by a criminal court, the impugned order dismissing
him from service deserves to be quashed and set aside."
19. We are in full agreement with the exposition of law laid
down by this Court and it is fairly well settled that two
proceedings criminal and departmental are entirely different.
They operate in different fields and have different objectives.
Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate
punishment on an offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings
is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose
penalty in accordance with the service rules. The degree of
proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different from
the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of
delinquency. Even the rule relating to appreciation of evidence
in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law,
burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40560
13 WP-20625-2023
prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt, he cannot be convicted by a court of law
whereas in the departmental enquiry, penalty can be imposed
on the delinquent on a finding recorded on the basis of
"preponderance of probability". Acquittal by the court of
competent jurisdiction in a judicial proceeding does not ipso
facto absolve the delinquent from the liability under the
disciplinary jurisdiction of the authority. This what has been
considered by the High Court in the impugned judgment1 in
detail and needs no interference by this Court.
20. The judgment in M. Paul Anthony case on which the
learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance was a case
where a question arose for consideration as to whether the
departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case
on the basis of same sets of facts and evidence can be
continued simultaneously and this Court answered in para 22 as
under: (SCC p. 691)
"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. (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. 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. (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. (v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal
is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40560
14 WP-20625-2023
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."
21. The Supreme Court in the case of Depot Manager, A.P. SRTC v.
Mohd. Yousuf Miya, reported in (1997) 2 SCC 699 has held as under :-
"8. We are in respectful agreement with the above view.
The purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution is two
different and distinct aspects. The 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 (sic 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 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. The enquiry in the departmental proceedings
relates to the conduct of the delinquent officer and proof in that
behalf is not as high as in an offence in criminal charge. It is seen
that invariably the departmental enquiry has to be conducted
expeditiously so as to effectuate efficiency in public administration
and the criminal trial will take its own course. The nature of
evidence in criminal trial is entirely different from the departmental
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40560
15 WP-20625-2023
proceedings. In the former, prosecution is to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt on the touchstone of human conduct. The
standard of proof in the departmental proceedings is not the same
as of the criminal trial. The evidence also is different from the
standard point of the Evidence Act. The evidence required in the
departmental enquiry is not regulated by the Evidence Act. Under
these circumstances, what is required to be seen is whether the
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. In this case, we have seen that the charge is failure
to anticipate the accident and prevention thereof. It has nothing to
do with the culpability of the offence under Sections 304-A and
338, IPC. Under these circumstances, the High Court was not right
in staying the proceedings."
(Emphasis supplied)
22. The Supreme Court in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and
others v. T. Srinivas , reported in (2004) 7 SCC 442 has held that while
staying the departmental proceedings, the Court must take into consideration
the seriousness of charges alleged against the employee. Where the charge is
in relation to acceptance of illegal gratification by employee and desirability
of continuing the delinquent officer in service in spite of such charges
against him, the stay of disciplinary proceedings till the conclusion of
criminal trial was unsustainable and accordingly has held as under:
"10. From the above, it is clear that the advisability,
desirability or propriety, as the case may be, in regard to a
departmental enquiry has to be determined in each case taking
into consideration all facts and circumstances of the case. This
judgment also lays down that the stay of departmental
proceedings cannot be and should not be a matter of course.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40560
16 WP-20625-2023
orders indicates that both 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
(L&S) 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 (L&S) 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.
12. We think the above ratio of law laid down by this Court
applies aptly to the facts of the present case also. It is also to be
noted that in Capt. M. Paul Anthony case [(1999) 3 SCC 679 :
1999 SCC (L&S) 810] this Court has accepted the principle
laid down in Rajasthan case [(1996) 6 SCC 417 : 1996 SCC
(L&S) 1455].
13. As stated above, in the case in hand, both the Tribunal and
the High Court proceeded as if a departmental enquiry and a
criminal trial could not proceed simultaneously, hence, they
stayed the departmental enquiry which by itself, in our opinion,
is contrary to the principles laid down in the above cited cases.
14. We are of the opinion that both the Tribunal and the High
Court proceeded on an erroneous legal principle without taking
into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case and
proceeded as if the stay of disciplinary proceedings is a must in
every case where there is a criminal trial on the very same
charges, in this background it is not necessary for us to go into
the second question whether at least Charge 3 by itself could
have been permitted to be decided in the departmental enquiry
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40560
17 WP-20625-2023
as contended alternatively by the learned counsel for the
appellant."
(Emphasis supplied)
23. In the case of Union of India and others vs Dalbir Singh reported
in (2021) 11 SCC 321 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"24. .... held that the degree of proof which is necessary to order a
conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the
commission of delinquency. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the
prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt, he cannot be convicted by a court of
law. In a departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be
imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of
preponderance of probability. It was held as under: 11. As far as
acquittal of the appellant by a criminal court is concerned, in our
opinion, the said order does not preclude the Corporation from taking an
action if it is otherwise permissible. In our judgment, the law is fairly
well settled. Acquittal by a criminal court would not debar an employer
from exercising power in accordance with the Rules and Regulations in
force. The two proceedings, criminal and departmental, are entirely
different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives.
Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment
on the offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the
delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with the
service rules. In a criminal trial, incriminating statement made by the
accused in certain circumstances or before certain officers is totally
inadmissible in evidence. Such strict rules of evidence and procedure
would not apply to departmental proceedings. The degree of proof which
is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof
necessary to record the commission of delinquency. The rule relating to
appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In
criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the
prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt, he cannot be convicted by a court of law. In a departmental
enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent
officer on a finding recorded on the basis of preponderance of
probability. Acquittal of the appellant by a Judicial Magistrate, therefore,
does not ipso facto absolve him from the liability under the disciplinary
jurisdiction of the Corporation. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the
contention of the appellant that since he was acquitted by a criminal
court, the impugned order dismissing him from service deserves to be
quashed and set aside.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40560
18 WP-20625-2023
25. ....
8. ......The purpose of departmental inquiry and of prosecution are two
different and distinct aspects. The criminal prosecution is launched for
an offense 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 inquiry 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 the criminal cases 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 inquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the charge in the
criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated questions of fact
and law. Offense generally implies infringement of public duty, as
distinguished from mere private rights punishable under criminal law.
When the trial for a criminal offense is conducted it should be in
accordance with proof of the offense as per the evidence defined under
the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [in short the Evidence
Act]. The converse is the case of departmental inquiry. The inquiry in a
departmental proceeding 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 departmental inquiry would seriously prejudice the
delinquent in his defense 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)
24. In the case of SBI Vs. Neelam Nag reported in (2016) 9 SCC 491 it has
been held that the delinquent may not claim postponement of witnesses in
criminal trial in such a manner that it would unnecessarily delay the
departmental proceedings and an equitable balance has to be drawn between
expeditious conclusion of ongoing disciplinary proceedings on one hand and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40560
19 WP-20625-2023
fair trial to the accused on the other hand.
25. In the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sarvesh Berry
reported in (2005) 10 SCC 471 it has been categorically held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in para-8 thereof that crime is an act of commission in
violation of law or omission of public duty whereas departmental enquiry is
to maintain discipline in service and efficiency of service and it not desirable
to lay down any guideline or rules in which departmental proceedings may or
may not be stayed pending trial in criminal case and each case requires to be
considered in the backdrop of its own facts and circumstances.
26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in recent judgment in Civil Appeal No.
3586/2025 (Food Corporation of India & others Vs. Harish Prakash Hinunia )
has held that in case of charges of corruption where the employee has been
trapped while accepting bribe, preventing the employer from initiating
departmental proceedings would not be proper and charges are serious and
relating to discharge of duties and function of the employees in the
Corporation. Consequently the Hon'ble Supreme Court set-aside the order of
High Court and left it open for the Corporation to proceed with the enquiry.
The Supreme Court has held as under:-
"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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40560
20 WP-20625-2023
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 also issued. Needless to say that the
criminal proceedings shall be decided strictly on the basis of evidence adduced
before the Court.
27. A Division Bench of this court recently in W.A. No. 1753/2023 had
kept in abeyance the departmental proceedings only for the period of six
months and when the outcome of criminal trial was not forthcoming even
after six months then left it open for the employer to proceed with
departmental proceedings as per law. However, in the present case more than
two years have elapsed since presentation of challan and even recording of
prosecution witnesses has not started in the criminal trial.
28. In view of the above, it is not a fit case where the departmental enquiry
should be kept stayed for any further time and the employer should be at
liberty to enquire into the conduct of its officers who are entrusted with post
of confidence and are alleged to have indulged in corrupt practices.
29. Consequently, these petitions deserves to be and are hereby dismissed,
however, nothing contained in this order shall prejudice the petitioners in
raising all defences available with them in departmental enquiry or in the
criminal trial.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
MISHRA
