Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pradeep Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39893
1 WP-16924-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 20th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 16924 of 2025
PRADEEP YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pramod Singh Tomar - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Praveen Namdeo Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
ORDER
By way of this petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the departmental enquiry and charge-sheet issued by the department because on the same set of allegations a criminal case is also registered against the petitioner.
2. An FIR has been registered against the petitioner under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act on the allegations that the petitioner demanded bribe of Rs. 75,000/- from the complainant and upon negotiation the bribe was reduced to Rs. 50,000/- The petitioner thereafter, got a tip of a trap was being laid against him and therefore, delivery/acceptance of bribe could not take place.
3. In the charge sheet issued by the department, it is alleged against the petitioner who is posted as Head Constable in the M.P. Police, that he Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 23-08-2025 16:13:51 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39893 2 WP-16924-2025 entered into telephonic conversation with the complainant and he exhibited an suspicious and unlawful conduct in the matter of said conversation in as much as he made demand of bribe in the telephonic conversation. The allegation is that there was a criminal case between two persons namely Rajneesh Mishra and Chhatar Singh Ahirwar and they reached to a compromise but the petitioner has demanded bribe to close the case. Rajneesh Mishra is a complainant in criminal case but he has not been arrayed as witness in the departmental charge-sheet and the other party in the criminal case i.e. Chatar Singh Ahirwar has been named as witness in the departmental charge-sheet.
4. Though, the complainant of criminal case namely Rajneesh Mishra has not been named as witness in the departmental charge-sheet but the persons involved in the transaction of demand of bribe are involved in the departmental charge-sheet also and one of the document of which the prosecution relies in the departmental charge-sheet is the statement of complainant of criminal case Rajneesh Mishra. Therefore, it is clear that there is some commonality of charges in criminal trial and in the departmental charges. However, the departmental proceedings cannot be indefinitely held up on account of charges being common and such holding up of departmental enquiry indefinitely, more so when the petitioner is a member of disciplined force and who is alleged to have demanded bribe to settle the criminal case of which he was investigating officer, early conclusion of departmental enquiry would be in public interest.
5. The Supreme Court in the case of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 23-08-2025 16:13:51 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39893 3 WP-16924-2025 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 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)
6. 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 23-08-2025 16:13:51 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39893 4 WP-16924-2025 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 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) Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 23-08-2025 16:13:51 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39893 5 WP-16924-2025
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 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 23-08-2025 16:13:51 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39893 6 WP-16924-2025 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.
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.Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 23-08-2025 16:13:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39893 7 WP-16924-2025 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, 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."
7 . 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 23-08-2025 16:13:51 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39893 8 WP-16924-2025 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)
8. 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 23-08-2025 16:13:51 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39893
9 WP-16924-2025 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 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 23-08-2025 16:13:51 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39893 10 WP-16924-2025 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."
(Emphasis supplied)
9. 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.Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 23-08-2025 16:13:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39893 11 WP-16924-2025
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)
10. 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 fair trial to the accused on the other hand.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 23-08-2025 16:13:51NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39893 12 WP-16924-2025
11. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3586/2025 (Food Corporation of India & others Vs. Harish Prakash Hinunia) 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 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.
12. A Division Bench in W.A. 1752/2023 vide order dated 04.08.2025 after putting the departmental enquiry to hold for six months, had left it upon for the department to conclude the departmental enquiry despite the criminal case being pending.
13. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid, this court is only inclined to direct that for a period of six months, the examination of witnesses Chatar Singh and Akash Choudhary shall not take place in the departmental enquiry. However, if these two witnesses are not examined in the criminal case even within six months from today then the departmental enquiry shall proceed after recording the statements of Chatar Singh and Akash Choudhary and there would be no embargo or hurdle in conclusion of departmental enquiry and passing of final order in departmental proceedings.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 23-08-2025 16:13:51NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39893 13 WP-16924-2025
14. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition is disposed off.
(VIVEK JAIN) JUDGE MISHRA Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 23-08-2025 16:13:51