Madhya Pradesh High Court
Basant Kumar Singh vs Coal India Limited on 27 January, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4874
1 WP No.1173/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
A T JA BA LPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 27th OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 1173 of 2025
BASANT KUMAR SINGH
Versus
COAL INDIA LIMITED AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vidya Shankar Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed
seeking the following reliefs :-
(i) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding
the respondents to stay the departmental proceedings
initiated against the petitioner till the final decision
in the criminal case mentioned in the challan
(Annexure-P-2).
(ii) Any other relief to which the petitioner is
entitled to be also granted.
(iii) Cost of the petition granted.
2. The facts unfolded in the present case are that the petitioner who
was Chief Manager (Security) in the Administration Department at
Northern Coalfields Limited Headquarter, Singrauli in the year 2024 is
alleged to have committed gross irregularities in the matter of delivery /
giving of illegal gratification / undue advantage and he gave bribe amount
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4874
of Rs.5 Lakhs to Shri Joy Joseph Damle, Deputy S. P. CBI, ACB, Jabalpur
through two intermediaries in order to get settled his case registered with
CBI Jabalpur. It is also alleged that the petitioner with dishonest intention
entered into a criminal conspiracy with other delinquent employees /
officials of NCL and committed the offence and tarnished the image and
was detrimental to the interest of the Company. On the basis of the
complaint made by the respondents, a case has been registered at Police
Station CBI/AC-II, New Delhi for the offence punishable under Sections
7, 7A and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in
2018) and under Sections 61 (2) of the BNS, 2023 on Crime
No.RC2172024A0012. The police after completion of investigation have
filed challan against the petitioner along with others and now, the
petitioner is facing criminal trial.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
charges levelled against the petitioner in the memorandum are the same as
those mentioned in the challan filed by the Police. The only difference is
that the charges containing in the memorandum have been given the shape
of departmental lapses / illegalities. The nature of charges mentioned in
the challan as well as in the memorandum of charges is the same. Since,
the nature of the charges levelled in the memorandum of charges and
mentioned in the challan is the same and most of the witnesses mentioned
in the memorandum of charges and those mentioned in the challan are also
same, therefore, the departmental proceedings be stayed till the final
decision of the criminal case. It is further contended that on the same set
of allegations, charge sheet has been issued to the petitioner by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4874
respondents and on the same set of allegations, the petitioner has been
subjected to prosecution. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the strength
of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Capt. M.
Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. And another (1999) 3 SCC
679 has prayed that the departmental proceedings be stayed till the final
decision in the criminal case.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. On perusal of the record, it is seen that the challenge to the
disciplinary proceedings has been made basically on the ground of
continuation of two parallel proceedings i.e. the criminal and the
departmental proceedings running simultaneously.
6. 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.
7. The Supreme Court in the case of Avinash Sadashiv Bhosale
(Dead) Through LRs Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2012)
13 SCC 142 has held as under:-
"54. This Court recently reiterated the legal principle
that departmental proceedings can be conducted
simultaneously to the criminal trial in Karnataka
SRTC v. M.G. Vittal Rao [(2012) 1 SCC 442 : (2012)
1 SCC (L&S) 171]. In this case, making reference to
almost all the previous precedents, this Court has
reiterated the legal position as follows:
54.1. There is no legal bar for both proceedings to go
on simultaneously.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4874
54.2. 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 and law.
54.3. 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.
54.4. Departmental proceedings can go on
simultaneously to the criminal trial, except where both
the proceedings are based on the same set of facts and
the evidence in both the proceedings is 5 W.A.
No.1214/2024 common.
54.5. In our opinion, the principles culled out by this
Court would be a complete answer to all the
submissions made by Mr Jain."
8. 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4874
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."
9. 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. Yousuf Miya. 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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4874
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4874
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 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:4874
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
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4874
(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 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."
10. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4874
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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4874
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."
11. 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4874
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4874
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 as contended alternatively by the
learned counsel for the appellant."
12. The Supreme Court in the case of CAPT. M. Paul Anthony v.
Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679
has held as under:
"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) 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4874
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 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."
13. In the case of SBI vs Neelam Nag reported in (2016) 9 SCC 491,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the ground for claiming that the
disciplinary proceedings may be stayed would be to ensure that the
defense of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced. But,
such defense ought not to be permitted to unnecessarily delay the
departmental proceedings. A balance has to be drawn 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4874
other. An early conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings has itself been
seen by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to be in the interest of the employees.
14. Both the proceedings i.e. departmental proceedings as well as the
criminal proceedings are different. The criminal proceedings are strictly in
accordance to the evidence available on record and require strict proof of
evidence beyond reasonable doubts to prove the guilt whereas in the
disciplinary proceedings only the preponderance or probabilities are
required to be considered. Both the proceedings can run concurrently in
view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Union of India and others vs Dalbir Singh reported in (2021) 11 SCC
321. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dalbir Singh (supra) has
considered the previous cases and has categorically held that as both the
proceedings are different and degree of proof is different, therefore, both
the proceedings can continue parallel. There is no rider for continuation of
both the proceedings simultaneously.
15. Insofar running of criminal proceedings as well as departmental
proceedings simultaneously is concerned, the controversy stood concluded
by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dalbir Singh
(supra) wherein it is held as follows :
"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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4874
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4874
court, the impugned order dismissing him from service
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4874
... 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."
16. In view whereof, it is clear that both the proceedings can run
concurrently as the degree of proof in both the cases is different. One is
based upon the strict proof of evidence and other is on the preponderance
of probabilities. Thus, both the proceedings can continue simultaneously.
Under these circumstances, no relief can be extended to the petitioner.
17. The petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as
to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
JITENDRA KUMAR Digitally signed by JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, ou=PRINCIPAL BENCH INDORE,
2.5.4.20=a650f9cd964b96221568096ac01ab1bf019e0b76f6fc652f893c6324a2f64a5a,
postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
PAROUHA
serialNumber=627378D3EE51220F5E81130EECF5ABBEC55EBB6B78033E5FF10402B19
143AD99, cn=JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA
Date: 2025.02.04 11:26:57 +05'30'
JP
