Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deepesh Ingle vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC
NO.2025:MPHC-JBP:56166
1
WP No.7039 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
WRIT PETITION No. 7039 of 2023
DEEPESH INGLE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Maneesh Kholia - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Hitendra Singh - Government Advocate for respondents/State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(Reserved on 17.10.2025)
(Pronounced on: 18.11.2025)
By way of this petition, challenge is made to order of penalty
Annexure P-11
11 dated 12.12.2020 whereby petitioner has been punished
with penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect. The
said order has been confirmed in appeal also.
2. It is thee case of petitioner that the petitioner was working as a Jail
Warder at Sub-Jail
Jail Bareli, District Raisen. A charge-sheet
charge sheet was issued to
him on the allegation that when the petitioner was posted as Jail Warder,
then one Shri Rafiq Hussain Khan was posted as Assistant
ssistant Jail
Superintendent in the same Jail and on 24.10.2018 at about 9:00 p.m. in the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC
NO.2025:MPHC-JBP:56166
night, the petitioner came to the official residence of Shri Rafiq Husain
Khan in the jail premises and started verbally abusing the said officer and
also assaulted him.
m. Thereafter, while continuing with his verbal assault, he
hurled stone on the private vehicle of the said officer parked outside his
official residence and broke the windshield glass of his car. On these
allegations, he was charge
charge-sheeted.
3. It is contended
ed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
misconduct of the petitioner is not at all established because the petitioner
was also prosecuted for the same incident in criminal proceedings under
Sections 294, 452, 323, 427 and 506 Part
Part-II IPC and the Court of J.M.F.C.,
Bareli, District Raisen has acquitted the petitioner vide judgment dated
21.01.2022. It is contended that the same witnesses who were witnesses in
the departmental proceedings were witnesses in the criminal case and
except the said officer
er Rafiq Hussain Khan and his family members, all
other independent witnesses turned hostile, leading to acquittal of the
petitioner from all the charges. Therefore, it is argued that once the
allegations in the criminal case and in the departmental enquiry are seen,
coupled with the fact that even the evidence is the same, witnesses are the
same, then the acquittal of the delinquent employee in the criminal trial
cannot be ignored and it has to be duly given effect to. It is argued that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC
NO.2025:MPHC-JBP:56166
though the petitionerr had not been acquitted in criminal trial by the date the
Disciplinary Authority had passed the penalty order Annexure P-11,
P but
later on, at the time of deciding the appeal by the State Government, vide
Annexure P-15,
15, the petitioner had been acquitted in the criminal trial and
despite that, the Appellate Authority has not set aside the order of
punishment and erroneously went ahead to confirm the penalty order,
which should be interfered with by this Court and justice be meted out to
the petitioner.
4. By taking
aking this Court through the evidence of Satendra Parsariya in
the criminal case, so also his statement in the departmental enquiry, as
available at page 34 of the petition, it is argued that even in the
departmental enquiry, the said witness has not proper
properly
ly supported the
department's case against the petitioner. It is argued that the case is of "no
evidence" and the petitioner has been punished only on account of the
complaint and statement of the officer Rafiq Hussain Khan.
5. Per contra,, it is contended by tthe
he learned counsel for the State that
the allegation against the petitioner duly stood proved in the enquiry
proceedings and the enquiry report considers each and every evidence and
after considering the evidence on record, the Enquiry Officer-cum-Jail
Officer
Superintendent,
erintendent, Central Jail, Indore came to a conclusion that the petitioner
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC
NO.2025:MPHC-JBP:56166
not only had verbally abused the superior officer in his official residence,
but had also broken down the glass of the private vehicle of his senior
officer.
6. Upon hearing the rival parties and on the perusal of the record, it is
seen that the petitioner relies on the judgment of the criminal case wherein
the petitioner has been acquitted of the charges. However, upon a closer
scrutiny of the judgment of the criminal court, it is seen that in para 12 of
the said judgment, the criminal court did not disbelieve the allegation that
the petitioner had uttered verbal abuses to the officer but considered that in
what manner the said verbal abuses annoyed the said officer in terms of
Section 294 of IPC or led to obscenity in the mind of the said senior
officer, was not stated by senior officer in his statements.
7. It is settled in law that the scope of evidence and proof in
departmental enquiry is preponderance of probability whereas in criminal
crimina
trial it is strict proof beyond reasonable doubt. If a subordinate officer has
uttered verbal abuses to a senior officer within the official residential
premises, then though the said utterances may not have caused annoyance
for the purpose of Section 29
4 of IPC nor could have invoked obscene
thoughts in the mind of the superior officer in terms of Section 294 of IPC,
but still the act of the subordinate employee that too a uniformed employee
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC
NO.2025:MPHC-JBP:56166
uttering such profanities to the superior officer that too with
within
in the official
residential campus, is required to be looked into from a totally different
angle. Though it may not be offence for the purpose of Section 294
29 of IPC,
but it was certainly misconduct because it was not a friendly conversation
between two friends
ends which could have been ignored altogether for the
purpose of misconduct.
8. In similar terms, in paragraph 50 of the judgment of criminal court, it
has been recorded by the criminal court that the windshield glass of the
private car of the superior officer was broken by someone on the said date
which is duly established, but since nobody saw the petitioner breaking the
said glass by stone, therefore, benefit of doubt was given to the petitioner.
The standard of proof in criminal trial as already noted above, is proof
beyond reasonable doubt, but preponderance of probability is the standard
of proof in departmental enquiry and it has duly been established even in
the evidence recorded before the criminal court that there was altercation
between the petitioner and the superior officer, therefore, the altercation
being found proved in both the proceedings and the extent to which the
altercation went, may have been differently considered and construed by
the departmental and the Disciplinary Authority, deserves to be looked into
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC
NO.2025:MPHC-JBP:56166
by the angle of different standards of proof in criminal an
and
d departmental
proceedings.
9. 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 Gujar
Gujarat and Anr. reported in (2006) 5 SCC 446
446.It
is argued that effectively the commonality of charges and witnesses in the
departmental enquiry and criminal trial is there
there.
10. The judgment in the case of G.M. Tank (supra) has been
subsequently considered by the Hon'ble
Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases.
Later three-judges
judges Bench of Supreme Court in the case of Shashi Bhushan
Prasad Vs. Inspector General Central Industrial Security Force and
others (2019) 7 SCC 797 had the occasion to consider the judgment of
G.M. Tank (supra) and after considering the law on the subject,
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 obobject
ject 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC
NO.2025:MPHC-JBP:56166
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
prosecu
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
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
nexus/co-relationship.
relationship.
The kind of criminal act/delinquency which he ha hadd 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
withh 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 proceede
proceededd 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 crimina
criminall case and departmental enquiry were
different having no nexus/co-relationship
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 proceed
proceedings
ings would not
absolve the appellant from the liability under the disciplinary
proceedings instituted against him in which he had been held
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC
NO.2025:MPHC-JBP:56166
guilty and in sequel thereto punished with the penalty of
dismissal from service.
service."
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Power
Transmission Corporation Limited Vs. C. Nagaraju and another 2019
(10) SCC 367, has held in para-11
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
non availability of any evidence
before the criminall 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
his 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 uph upheld
eld [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
evidence in both the criminal trial and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC
NO.2025:MPHC-JBP:56166
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 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."1.
12. It is also settled in law that the scope of inquiry in criminal case and
in departmental
rtmental enquiry is altogether different. The standard of proof in
criminal case is proof beyond reasonable doubt whereas in departmental
proceeding the standard of proof is preponderance of probability.
13. The Supreme Court in the case of Management of Bharat
Bhara 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 dismis
dismissal
sal 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:-
therein:
"32. The answer to the aforementioned
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 pa
passed
ssed 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
ssal order which was solely based on passing of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC
NO.2025:MPHC-JBP:56166
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 prepond preponderance
erance of
probabilities and could be recorded by the enquiry officer
notwithstanding the order of criminal court acquitting the
respondents."
14. The Supreme Court in the case of Shashi Bhushan Prasad v. CISF,
reported in (2019) 7 SCC 797 has held as under :
"17.
17. The scope of departmental enquiry and judicial
proceedings and the effect of acquittal by a criminal court
have been examined by a three
three-Judge
Judge Bench of this Court in
A.P. SRTC v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya. The relevant paragraph is
as under: (SCC pp. 704-05,
704 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
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, bbee 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
ial 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC
NO.2025:MPHC-JBP:56166
with departmental enquiry and trial of a criminal
case unless the charge
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
fence 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 breac
breachh 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 ddepartmental
epartmental 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 oon n 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC
NO.2025:MPHC-JBP:56166
of the offence under Sections 304-A
304 andd 338
IPC. Under these circumstances, the High Court
was not right in staying the proceedings
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 concerned, in our opinion, the
said order does not preclude the Corporation
from taking an action if it is otherw otherwise
ise
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 ent
entirely
irely 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 w would
ould 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 proceproceedings
edings
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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC
NO.2025:MPHC-JBP:56166
Judicial Magistrate, therefore, does not ipso
facto absolve him from the liability under the
disciplinary
isciplinary 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 oorder
rder 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
"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
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 whe whether
ther 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 va
various
rious
decisions of this Court referred to above are:
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC
NO.2025:MPHC-JBP:56166
i. Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a
criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there
is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously,
though separately.
ii. If the departmental proceedings and the criminal
case are based on identical and similar set of facts
and the charge in the criminal case against the
delinquent employee is of a grave nature which
involves complicated questions of law and fact, it
would be desirable to stay the departmental
proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal
case.
iii. Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case
is grave and whether complicated questions of fact
and law are involved in that case, will depend
upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case
launched
nched against the employee on the basis of
evidence and material collected against him during
investigation or as reflected in the charge
charge-sheet.
iv. The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot
be considered in isolation to stay the departmental
procee
proceedings
dings 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."
15. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC
NO.2025:MPHC-JBP:56166
breach of which law has provided that the offender shall
make satisfaction to the publipublic.
c. 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
re 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 off
officer.
icer. 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 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
iminal 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 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 these circumstances, what is
required to be seen is whether the departmental enquiry
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC
NO.2025:MPHC-JBP:56166
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
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
304 A and 338, IPC. Under these
circumstances, the Hig
Highh Court was not right in staying the
proceedings."
(Emphasis supplied)
16. The Supreme Court in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
and others v. T. Srinivas
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 ooff 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
cas which persuaded them to stay the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC
NO.2025:MPHC-JBP:56166
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 trtrial
ial 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
service in spite of such serious charges
levelled against him.
him. This Court in the said case of State of
Rajasthan [(1996) 6 SCC 417 : 1996 SCC (L&S) (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 guil
guilty
ty 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)
996) 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 aaptly
ptly 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. Ass 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC
NO.2025:MPHC-JBP:56166
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
itted to be decided in the departmental enquiry as
contended alternatively by the learned counsel for the
appellant."
(Emphasis supplied)
17. In view of the aforesaid legal position, though there is
commonality of charges in criminal and Departmental
proceedings, but in view of the reasons as mentioned in para-7
para
and 8 of this order, since the scope of both the proceedings was
altogether different, therefore, no interference can be made in the
order of penalty Annexure P
P-11
11 so also in the consequential
appellate orders.
18. The petition fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
psm
