Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Manoj Kumar Solanki vs Gnctd on 29 October, 2025
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 1099/2025
Reserved on: 29.10.2025
Pronounced on:20.11.2025
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. B. Anand, Member (A)
Manoj Kumar Solanki
S/o Late Sh. Dalip Singh
R/o B-229, UGF, Humayun Pur
Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi-110029.
(By Advocate: Mr. Nipun Arora)
VERSUS
1. Chief Secretary,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Delhi Secretariat,IP Estate, New Delhi.
2. Dr. Umesh Kumar Pandey
(Inquiring Authority)
Directorate of Vigilance, GNCTD
6th Level, C-Wing, Delhi Secretariat
IP Estate, New Delhi-110002.
3. Government of NCT of Delhi
Through Principal Secretary (Vigilance)
4th Level, C-Wing, Delhi Secretariat
IP Estate, New Delhi.
(By Advocate: Ms. Purnima Maheshwari)
2
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr.B.Anand, Member (A):
The facts in a nutshell:-
The brief undisputed facts of the case is that the applicant while working as Food & Supply Officer in Circle 46 (Chhatarpur), Government of NCT of Delhi, Food and supply Department was arrested red-handed while demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 18000/- on 31.08.2021 from the complainant one Shri Naresh Agarwal and an FIR No. 10/2021 u/s 7 POC (Amendment) Act, 2018 was registered against him. Thereafter, he was enlarged on bail by the order dated 13.09.2021 of the Special Judge, PC Act, RADC, New Delhi. While the said criminal case was proceeding, the respondents initiated a parallel disciplinary proceeding by way of a charge-
memorandum issued on 01.02.2024.
2. The applicant herein is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in issuing the charge-memo dated 01.02.2024 (and as a consequence thereof having appointed IO and PO) and had initially approached this Tribunal vide OA No. 4465/2024. In the said OA No. 4465/2024, the applicant was seeking a stay on the disciplinary proceedings till outcome of the criminal case in the FIR No. 10/2021 PS AC 3 Branch u/s 7 of the POC (Amendment) Act, 2018 is known as the list of witnesses and the list of documents relied upon by the respondents in the disciplinary proceedings are the same in the disciplinary proceedings as well in the criminal case FIR No. 10/2021. The said OA was disposed of by this Tribunal vide order/judgment dated 14.11.2024 with direction to the respondents to consider and dispose of the applicant's pending representation dated 17.10.2024 within a period of four weeks and till such order is passed by the respondents not to go ahead with the departmental inquiry in accordance with the aforesaid memorandum dated 01.02.2024. The competent authority/respondent no. 1 herein considered the representation of the applicant and based on the instructions/guidelines of DOP&T and CVC rejected the representation dated 17.10.2024 of the applicant to keep the disciplinary proceedings in abeyance till filing of charge-sheet by A.C.B., Govt. of NCT of Delhi in the competent court as being devoid of merit vide their order dated 19.02.2025. The applicant is aggrieved by the order dated 19.02.2025 of respondent no. 1 and has filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief(s):-
"A. Direct that the disciplinary proceedings against the Applicant be quashed;4
B. In alternate to A above, direct the Respondents to keep the disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner in abeyance until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings in case FIR No. 10/2021 PS ACB;
C. Pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."
3. Pursuant to notice, the respondents have filed reply and have disputed and contested the claim of the applicant. The applicant has filed rejoinder and reiterated his claim and the grounds pleaded in support thereof. Submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant:-
4. The best ground on which the applicant's counsel is seeking relief is by relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr., reported in AIR 1999 SC 1416 wherein five guidelines as herein under have been laid down in para 22 of the said judgment for the guidance of the respondents which reads 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 desirable to stay 5 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, administration may get rid of him at the earliest."
5. The applicant states that the departmental proceedings initiated vide memorandum dated 01.02.2024 and the criminal case initiated vide FIR No. 10/2021 are identical and similar set of facts and documents and witnesses are the same. He submits that inasmuch as the charges in a criminal case against him is of 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. In this regard, he states that although the alleged incident had taken place on 31.08.2021 the respondents have taken more than three years in serving the charge-memo dated 01.02.2024. 6 Inasmuch the respondents have taken so much time in filing the charge-memo, no prejudice will be caused to their interest if the disciplinary proceedings are stayed till the charge-sheet is filed in the criminal case, as otherwise grave prejudice will be caused to the applicant depriving him of his right to fair trial as he will be forced to disclose his defense or highlight the inconsistencies in the prosecution's version.
6. The applicant submits that in as much as the FIR and the departmental charge-sheet are based on the same facts and allegations requiring the examination of the same witness(s) and the same set of evidence(s), he is of the opinion that the outcome of the criminal investigation and trial could directly affect the disciplinary proceedings and is apprehensive that continuing with the disciplinary proceedings even before the investigations in the criminal case are complete would prejudice his defense in the criminal case. He adds that the disciplinary proceedings ought not to be instituted after a long delay as the alleged incident of seeking and accepting bribe is that of 31.08.2021 whereas the charge-sheet is dated 01.04.2024. For these reasons, he submits that the disciplinary proceedings should not be allowed to continue. 7 Submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents:-
7. The respondents while relying on their counter reply state that they have scrupulously followed the instructions contained in DOPT OM dated 21.07.2016 on the subject of simultaneous action of prosecution and initiation of department proceedings and the Central Vigilance Commission's circular no. 08/7/2018 on simultaneous action of prosecution and initiation of department proceedings - guidance thereof. The said DOPT OM dated 21.07.2016 reads as under:-
"F.No.11012/6/2007-Estt (A-III) Government of India Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Department of Personnel and Training Establishment A-III Desk **** North Block, New Delhi - 110001 Dated: 21st July, 2016 OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: Simultaneous action of prosecution and initiation of departmental proceedings.
*** The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department's O.M. of even number dated 1st August, 2007 on the above subject and to state that in a recent judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India through its Secretary &Anr., Civil Appeal No. 1912 of 2015, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if, within this period, a Memorandum of Charges/Charge Sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee.8
2. It has been noticed that in many cases charge sheets are not issued despite clear prima facie evidence of misconduct, on the ground that the matter is under investigation by agencies such as the Central Bureau of Investigation. The Hon'ble Court has clarified that the earlier instructions of the Central Vigilance Commission advising that departmental proceedings be kept in abeyance pending criminal investigation stand superseded.
3. The legal position in respect of the following issues has been clarified in subsequent paragraphs:
(i) Issue of charge sheet where investigation is pending or a
charge sheet has been filed in court.
(ii) Effect of acquittal in criminal proceedings on departmental
inquiry.
(iii) Action where an employee convicted by a court has filed an
appeal.
Issue of charge sheet against an officer against whom an investigating agency is conducting investigation or against whom a charge sheet has been filed in a court
4. It has been reaffirmed in a catena of cases that there is no bar in law for initiation of simultaneous criminal and departmental proceedings on the same set of allegations. In State of Rajasthan vs. B.K. Meena & Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 417 = AIR 1997 SC 13 = 1997 (1) LLJ 746 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasised the need for initiating departmental proceedings in such cases in these words:
It must be remembered that interests of administration demand that the undesirable elements are thrown out and any charge of misdemeanor is enquired into promptly. The disciplinary proceedings are meant not really to punish the guilty but to keep the administrative machinery unsullied by getting rid of bad elements. The interest of the delinquent officer also lies in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. If he is not guilty of the charges, his honour should be vindicated at the earliest possible moment and if he is guilty, he should be dealt with promptly according to law. It is not also in the interest of administration that persons accused of serious misdemeanor should be continued in office indefinitely, i.e., for long periods awaiting the result of criminal proceedings.
5. In Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. &Anr., (1999) 3 SCC 679, the Supreme Court has observed that departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately.
Effect of acquittal in a criminal case on departmental inquiry
6. The question as to what is to be done in the case of acquittal in a criminal case has been answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 9 R.P. Kapur vs. Union of India &Anr. AIR 1964 SC 787 (a five Judge bench judgment) as follows:
If the trial of the criminal charge results in conviction, disciplinary proceedings are bound to follow against the public servant so convicted. Even in case of acquittal proceedings may follow where the acquittal is other than honourable.
7. The issue was explained in the following words by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following words in Ajit Kumar Nag v G M, (PJ), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (2005) 7 SCC 764:
Acquittal by a criminal court would not debar an employer from exercising power in accordance with 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 offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with 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 be of law. In departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can 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.
8. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in G.M. Tank vs State of Gujarat (2006) 5 SCC 446 has reaffirmed the principles laid down in R.P. Kapur (supra). In G.M. Tank case, Court observed that there was not an iota of evidence against the appellant to hold that he was guilty. As the criminal case and the departmental proceedings were based on identical set of facts and evidence, the Court set aside the penalty imposed in the departmental inquiry also.
9. Ratio in the G.M. Tank judgment should not be misconstrued to mean that no departmental proceedings are permissible in all cases of acquittal or that in such cases the penalty already imposed would have to be set aside. What the Hon'ble Court has held that is no departmental inquiry would be permissible when the evidence clearly establishes that no charge against the Government servant may be made out.
10Action where an employee convicted by a court files an appeal in a higher court
10. In many cases Government servants who have been found guilty by lower courts and have filed appeals in higher courts represent for reinstatement/ setting aside the penalty imposed under Rule 19(i) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. In such cases, the following observations 2001 Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.C. Sareen vs C.B.I., Chandigarh, 2001 (6) SCC 584 are to be kept in view:
When a public servant was found guilty of corruption after a judicial adjudicatory process conducted by a court of law, judiciousness demands that he should be treated as corrupt until he is exonerated by a superior court. The mere fact that an appellate or revisional forum has decided to entertain his challenge and to go into the issues and findings made against such public servants once again should not even temporarily absolve him from such findings. If such a public servant becomes entitled to hold public office and to continue to do official acts until he is judicially absolved from such findings by reason of suspension of the order of conviction it is public interest which suffers and sometimes even irreparably. When a public servant who is convicted of corruption is allowed to continue to hold public office it impair the morale of the other persons manning such office, and consequently that would erode the already shrunk confidence of the people in such public institutions besides demoralising the other honest public servants who would either be the colleagues or subordinates of the convicted person. If honest public servants are compelled to take orders from proclaimed corrupt officers on account of the suspension of the conviction the fall out would be one of shaking the system itself.
11. Thus action against a convicted Government servant should be taken straight away under Rule 19(1). An appeal against the conviction or even a stay on the sentence will have no effect unless the conviction itself is stayed.
12. In view of the law laid down in various judgments, including the ones quoted above, in cases of serious charges of misconduct, particularly involving moral turpitude, the Ministries/Departments should keep the following points in view to take prompt action:
(i) All incriminating documents should be seized promptly to avoid their tempering or destruction of evidence.
(ii) Particular care needs to be taken for retention of copies of such documents while handing over the same to an investigating agency. These documents may be attested after comparison with the originals.
(iii)In case the documents have been filed in a court, certified copies of documents may be obtained.
(iv) Documents and other evidence must be examined to see whether any misconduct, including favour, harassment, 11 negligence or violation of rules/instructions has been committed. If there is a prima facie evidence of misconduct, charge sheet under the appropriate rule must be issued.
(v) Court judgments should be promptly acted upon:
(a) in cases of conviction action is to be taken under Rule 19(i) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965;
(b) in cases of acquittal also, if the Court has not acquitted the accused honourably, charge sheet may be issued;
(c) an acquittal on technical grounds or where a benefit of doubt has been given to the accused will have no effect on a penalty imposed under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, as while in a criminal trial the charge has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, in the departmental inquiry the standard of evidence is preponderance of probability.
(vi) An appeal by the accused against conviction, but where the conviction has not been overturned/stayed, will have no effect on action taken under Rule 19(i) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, even if Court has directed stay/suspension of the sentence.
13. All Ministries/Departments are requested to bring the above guidelines to the notice of all concerned officials for compliance.
14. Hindi version follows.
(Mukesh Chaturvedi) Director(E)"
8. In particular, they have drawn the attention of the Bench to the para 3 of the CVC circular dated 31.07.2018 which reads as under:-
"3.The Disciplinary Authority has been vested with the powers to carry out its statutory duty / obligations by initiation of appropriate departmental actions. This is as much to ensure that a delinquent public servant does not get undue benefit either by the long pendency of court proceedings or by the higher standard of proof required as it is to protect innocent public servant from vexatious proceedings. It is not open to the Disciplinary Authorities to await the outcome or decision of investigating/prosecuting agency or the Court trial."12
9. The respondents also state that the applicant on one hand himself states that no charge-sheet has been filed in Criminal Court and at the same breath states that his defense would be disclosed prematurely if disciplinary proceedings are allowed to continue. He states that the applicant had already disclosed his defense in the bail application as the stand taken is that "the accused has been falsely implicated at the instance of the Complainant Naresh Agarwal who kept enmity with the accused as he wanted to get a license renewed in respect of his shop." Conclusion:
10. We have heard the counsels from both the sides patiently and with their assistance have also gone through the pleadings available on record.
11. We find that the pleadings in the present matter are substantially the same as those in the earlier OA No. 4465/2024, in which, by order/judgment dated 14.11.2024, this Tribunal had granted interim relief directing the respondents not to proceed with the departmental inquiry until a decision was taken on the applicant's pending representation dated 17.10.2024. The respondents have since passed the impugned order dated 13 19.02.2025 rejecting the applicant's request for halting the disciplinary proceedings.
12. Thus, effectively, from 14.11.2024 till now--nearly one year--the disciplinary proceedings have remained stayed by virtue of the interim order. We also note that the charge-sheet in the corresponding criminal case has yet to be filed. We cannot permit the applicant to continue enjoying the benefit of an interim stay when there has been no substantial progress in the criminal case FIR No. 10/2021 dated 21.08.2021.
13. In these circumstances, we place reliance on the guidance of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M. Paul Anthony (supra),wherein, it has been held that "the disciplinary enquiry cannot -- and should not be -- delayed unduly. If the criminal case is unduly delayed, that may itself be a good ground for going ahead with the disciplinary enquiry even though the disciplinary proceedings were held over at an earlier stage. It would not be in the interests of administration that persons accused of serious misdemeanour should be continued in office indefinitely awaiting the result of criminal proceedings".
14
14. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we find no merit in the OA, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
15. The interim protection granted earlier is hereby vacated.
(B. Anand) (R.N. Singh) Member (A) (Member (J) /anjali/