Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rohitash Meena vs Northern Coal Field Ltd. on 16 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45809
1
WP No.14691/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 16th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 14691 of 2025
ROHITASH MEENA
Versus
NORTHERN COALFIELDS LTD. AND OTHERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri K.C. Ghildiyal - Senior Advocate with Shri Kapil Sharma -
Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Prashant Singh - Senior Advocate with Ms. Kanak Gaharwar -
Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
1. By way of present petition, the petitioner who is working as a Manager (Civil) in Northern Coalfields Limited, Singrauli (M.P.), has sought the relief that the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner, by way of charge-sheet Annexure P-3 dated 13.03.2025 be stayed during pendency of the criminal trial.
2. It is contended by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that there is allegation that the petitioner demanded a bribe of Rs.2.27 Lakhs from one Vikas Kumar Singh for payment of work of drilling of borewells at Nehru Shatabdi Hospital, Jayant Project, Singrauli. The bribe amount so demanded, was thereafter negotiated and reduced to Rs.2.00 Lakhs and, Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREM SHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-09-2025 18:39:02 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45809 2 WP No.14691/2025 thereafter a trap was laid on complaint of complainant Vikas Kumar Singh and the team of officials of Anti-Corruption Branch, CBI, Jabalpur is alleged to have caught the petitioner red-handed from his office Chamber on 18.09.2022 while accepting bribe amount of Rs.50,000/- from said Vikas Kumar Singh and then the petitioner with co-accused Mandeep Kumar (Overseer) were arrested and taken into custody by the CBI team. It is alleged in the charge-sheet that the aforesaid act of the petitioner and demand and acceptance of bribe, amounts to failure to maintain integrity and devotion to duty and amounts to misconduct by conducting in a manner unbecoming of a public servant and he failed to maintain the ethical standard and honesty as required by officer of the respondent company.
3. It is argued by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that in the matter of demand and acceptance of bribe and alleged trap being laid and the petitioner being alleged to be trapped red handed while accepting bribe of Rs.50,000/- in his office premises on 18.09.2022, an FIR has been registered by the CBI, Jabalpur at FIR No.RC0092022A007 wherein the same and similar allegations have been levelled against the petitioner and the charge-sheet has been presented before the Special Court (CBI), Jabalpur under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as well as Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREM SHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-09-2025 18:39:02 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45809 3 WP No.14691/2025
4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that though in the criminal trial the number of witnesses named in the charge sheet are 24 and number of witnesses named in the departmental charge-sheet are only two, but the said two witnesses are the witnesses of trap i.e. one Amit Kumar Gautam, Manager, UCO Bank, Singrauli who was witness and one U.P. Singh, Inspector, CBI, Jabalpur who had laid the trap of recovery of amount. It is further argued that said Shri U.P. Singh is actually the Investigating Officer of the case and if the petitioner is made to cross examine the Investigating Officer and the trap witness prior to they being examined in the criminal trial, then the defence of the petitioner in the criminal trial would be seriously prejudiced. It is further argued that though the complainant of criminal case is not named as a witness in the enquiry but the charge-sheet issued by the Company mentions that any other witnesses can be called as may be required in the course of the enquiry. The witnesses so far named in the enquiry i.e. U.P. Singh and Amit Kuamr Gautam have been already named as witnesses No.2 and 13 in the charge-sheet presented before the CBI court.
5. The learned Senior Counsel further argued that upon presentation of challan by the CBI, the Special Court (CBI), Jabalpur has framed charges on 09.05.2023 and Special Sessions Trial No.02/2023 is pending before the said court but looking to the number of witnesses which are 24 and the number of documents sought to be produced i.e. 73 and number of articles Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREM SHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-09-2025 18:39:02 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45809 4 WP No.14691/2025 which are 24, the trial would take a lot of time. The petitioner cannot be made to examine the Investigating Officer who is also the trap laying officer, the trap witness and may be the complainant of the criminal case prior to he being examined in the criminal case.
6. The ground of the petitioner is that since the charges in the department proceedings and in the criminal trial are same and similar therefore, in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Captain M. Paul Antony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines, 1999 (3) SCC 679 so also in the case of G.M. Tank Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr., reported in (2006) 5 SCC 446, though the employer may be at liberty to conduct parallel enquiry, but the enquiry pursuant to Departmental charge sheet has to be stayed because there is commonality of the charges and witnesses in the department enquiry in criminal trial. Therefore, at least the examination of the common witnesses in departmental enquiry and criminal trial has to be postponed and the common witnesses should not be examined in departmental enquiry till their examination in criminal trial because if the petitioner cross-examines these witnesses in departmental proceedings prior to they being examined in criminal case, then the defence of the petitioner in criminal case would be disclosed and which would jeopardize his case in the criminal proceedings. It is contended that the accused has a right to remain silent in criminal proceedings because the standard is strict proof beyond reasonable doubt whereas in departmental proceedings no Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREM SHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-09-2025 18:39:02 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45809 5 WP No.14691/2025 such right to remain silent is available because the standard of proof is preponderance of probability and therefore, it is contended that the charge- sheet either be stayed till conclusion of criminal trial, or the examination of the common witnesses be postponed in departmental enquiry till they are examined in trial.
7. The learned Senior Counsel further relied on judgment of Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.158/2022 (Food Corporation of India vs. Harish Prakash Hinunia) whereby the judgment passed by the Single Bench has been confirmed with the slight modification and the Division Bench had held that the order of the Single Bench in restraining the employer to proceed with Article-1 of the charge-sheet does not require any interference but the Division Bench had directed that in case criminal trial is not concluded within 12 months, then the employer may approach this Court by filing appropriate application to permit the employer to proceed with departmental enquiry subject to it satisfying the court that delay in criminal trial is for reasons not attributable to prosecution.
8. Per contra, it is vehemently contended by learned Senior Counsel for the respondents that firstly the writ petition only seeking stay on departmental proceedings is not maintainable because stay cannot be a final relief in itself. Stay can only be granted as an interim relief and the petitioner has filed an utterly misconceived petition in seeking stay on departmental enquiry. It is further argued that the departmental enquiry Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREM SHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-09-2025 18:39:02 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45809 6 WP No.14691/2025 cannot be indefinitely postponed more so when the charges are of corruption. Criminal trial would take a long time to be concluded and till that time the department cannot be expected to postpone the departmental enquiry. It is contended that this court while issuing notice has already stayed the departmental enquiry vide order dated 29.04.2025 and the petitioner should not be allowed to reap further benefits of the interim order. As sufficient time has elapsed since stay was granted, therefore, no further indulgence should be granted to the petitioner.
9. Heard.
10. So far as the issue of maintainability of writ petition only for grant of stay on departmental enquiry is concerned, the petitioner has not sought stay on departmental enquiry without any reason. The petitioner has sought stay on departmental enquiry only till the time the criminal trial is over or till the time the common witnesses are examined in the criminal trial so as not to prejudice his defence in the criminal trial. A petition filed by the accused in the criminal case seeking fair trial or complaining that some act may prejudice his defence in the criminal trial is a right granted to the accused to ensure fair trial to the accused, which the hallmark of our criminal justice system. If in the own opinion of the accused in criminal case, the stay of departmental enquiry would ensure free and fair criminal trial to him, then the petition cannot be held to be non-maintainable, though it would be for the court to consider whether stay of departmental enquiry Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREM SHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-09-2025 18:39:02 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45809 7 WP No.14691/2025 would lead to free and fair criminal trial or not. It is for the court to grant stay or not, but the accused can approach the court seeking stay if he feels that continuation of departmental enquiry would prejudice his case in criminal trial. The outcome of the petition may be a different matter but the petition cannot be held to be not maintainable. Therefore, this objection of the respondents is discarded.
11. So far as the question of Shri U.P. Singh who is common witness in the departmental enquiry in the criminal trial being Investigating Officer of the case is concerned, it was pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents that the charge-sheet presented before the Special Court (CBI), Jabalpur is signed by one Amit Kumar Dwivedi as Investigating Officer, however, at the same time, in the same charge sheet the name of Shri U.P. Singh is mentioned as the officer to whom the investigation of the case was entrusted, conducted pre-trap proceedings and being the trap laying officer. Therefore, Shri U.P. Singh is one of the persons who has done part work in the investigation and has conducted part of the investigation in the case. Therefore, Shri U.P. Singh cannot be held to be a person not being an Investigating Officer at all.
12. So far as the issue of commonality of charges in criminal case and departmental enquiry is concerned, as noted above, in the criminal case allegations are of demand and acceptance of bribe after trap was laid. In the departmental enquiry, in charge-sheet Annexure P-3 which has been Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREM SHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-09-2025 18:39:02 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45809 8 WP No.14691/2025 issued, it is having the charge of demand and receipt of illegal gratification from the same complainant and being trapped red-handed while accepting the bribe amount. Therefore, the facts which are required to be proved to establish the charge in the departmental enquiry are the same facts which are required to be established to prove the charges against petitioner in the criminal trial and this Court has no doubt to the fact that the charges are common. Though the standard of proof in the departmental enquiry and in criminal trial may be different, but the same facts which are to be established in criminal trial are also required to be established in the charge as alleged against the petitioner in the charge-sheet.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Captain M. Paul Antony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines, 1999 (3) SCC 679 so also in the case of G.M. Tank Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr. reported in (2006) 5 SCC 446. This Court has already come to conclusion that effectively the commonality of charges and witnesses in the departmental enquiry and criminal trial is there to the extent of Charge No.1 in Departmental enquiry.
14. The judgment in the case of G.M. Tank (supra) has been subsequently considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases. Later three judges Bench of Supreme Court in the case of ShashiBhushan Prasad Vs. Inspector General Central Industrial Security Force and others (2019) 7 SCC 797 had the occasion to consider the judgment of Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREM SHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-09-2025 18:39:02 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45809 9 WP No.14691/2025 G.M. Tank (supra) and after considering the law on the subject has held as under:-
"19. We are in full agreement with the exposition of law laid down by this Court and it is fairly well settled that two proceedings criminal and departmental are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on an offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with the service rules. The degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency. Even the rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, he cannot be convicted by a court of law whereas in the departmental enquiry, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent on a finding recorded on the basis of "preponderance of probability". Acquittal by the court of competent jurisdiction in a judicial proceeding does not ipso facto absolve the delinquent from the liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the authority. This what has been considered by the High Court in the impugned judgment [Shashi Bhusan Prasad v. CISF, 2008 SCC OnLine Ori 544:
2008 Lab IC 3733] in detail and needs no interference by this Court.
21. It may not be of assistance to the appellant in the instant case for the reason that the charge levelled against the appellant in the criminal case and departmental proceedings of which detailed reference has been made were on different sets of facts and evidence having no nexus/co-relationship.
The kind of criminal act/delinquency which he had committed in discharge of his duties in the course of employment. That apart, much before the judgment of the criminal case could be pronounced, the departmental enquiry was concluded and after the enquiry officer had held him guilty, he was punished with the penalty of dismissal from service.
22. The judgment in G.M. Tank case [G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat, (2006) 5 SCC 446 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1121] on which the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance was a case where this Court had proceeded on the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREM SHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-09-2025 18:39:02 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45809 10 WP No.14691/2025 premise that the charges in the criminal case and departmental enquiry are grounded upon the same sets of facts and evidence. This may not be of any assistance to the appellant as we have observed that in the instant case the charge in the criminal case and departmental enquiry were different having no nexus/co-relationship based on different sets of facts and evidence which has been independently enquired in the disciplinary proceedings and in a criminal trial and acquittal in the criminal proceedings would not absolve the appellant from the liability under the disciplinary proceedings instituted against him in which he had been held guilty and in sequel thereto punished with the penalty of dismissal from service."
15. 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 that benefit can be claimed only if evidence before the criminal court and the departmental inquiry is exactly the same. In such circumstances acquittal of the employee by criminal court can be given weight by the disciplinary authority. It has further been held that acquittal of employee due to non-availability of any evidence before the criminal court would not come to rescue of the employee in the matter of dismissal on the basis of report of enquiry officer before whom there is ample evidence. The following has been held in para 11:
"11. Reliance was placed by the High Court on a judgment of this Court in G.M. Tank [G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat, (2006) 5 SCC 446 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1121] whereby the writ petition filed by Respondent 1 was allowed. In the said case, the delinquent officer was charged for an offence punishable under Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the PC Act, 1988. He was honourably acquitted by the criminal court as the prosecution failed to prove the charge. Thereafter, a departmental inquiry was conducted and he was dismissed from service. The order of dismissal was upheld [G.M. Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREM SHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-09-2025 18:39:02 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45809 11 WP No.14691/2025 Tank v. State of Gujarat, 2003 SCC OnLine Guj 487] by the High Court. In the appeal filed by the delinquent officer, this Court was of the opinion that the departmental proceedings and criminal case were based on identical and similar set of facts. The evidence before the criminal court and the departmental proceedings being exactly the same, this Court held that the acquittal of the employee by a criminal court has to be given due weight by the disciplinary authority. On the basis that the evidence in both the criminal trial and departmental inquiry is the same, the order of dismissal of the appellant therein was set aside. As stated earlier, the facts of this case are entirely different. The acquittal of Respondent 1 was due to non-availability of any evidence before the criminal court. The order of dismissal was on the basis of a report of the inquiry officer before whom there was ample evidence against Respondent 1."
16. It is also settled in law that the scope of inquiry in criminal case and in departmental enquiry is altogether different. The standard of proof in criminal case is proof beyond reasonable doubt whereas in departmental proceeding the standard of proof is preponderance of probability.
17. The Supreme Court in the case of Management of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Vs. M. Mani 2018 (1) SCC 285 has held that employee can seek automatic reversal of dismissal order upon acquittal in criminal case only in such cases where the dismissal is founded upon conviction in criminal case. Where dismissal is not founded upon conviction in criminal case but is founded upon independent domestic inquiry carried out by the management/ employer, there cannot be any automatic reinstatement. The following has been held therein:-
"32. The answer to the aforementioned submission lies in the law laid down by this Court in Karnataka SRTC [Karnataka SRTC v. M.G. Vittal Rao, (2012) 1 SCC 442 : (2012) 1 SCC Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREM SHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-09-2025 18:39:02 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45809 12 WP No.14691/2025 (L&S) 171] . At the cost of repetition, we may say that in the case on hand, the dismissal orders had not been passed on the basis of employees' conviction by the criminal court which later stood set aside by the superior court. Had it been so, then the situation would have been different because once the conviction order is set aside by the superior court, the dismissal order which was solely based on passing of the conviction order also stands set aside. Such was not the case here.
33. In the case on hand, the appellant employer had conducted the departmental enquiry in accordance with law independently of the criminal case wherein the enquiry officer, on the basis of the appreciation of evidence brought on record in the enquiry proceedings, came to a conclusion that a charge of theft against the delinquent employees was proved. This finding was based on preponderance of probabilities and could be recorded by the enquiry officer notwithstanding the order of criminal court acquitting the respondents."
18. 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 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."Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREM SHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-09-2025 18:39:02
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45809 13 WP No.14691/2025 (Emphasis supplied)
19. 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 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREM SHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-09-2025 18:39:02 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45809 14 WP No.14691/2025 the relevant statutory rules or law. That the strict standard of proof or applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded is a settled legal position. The enquiry in the departmental proceedings relates to the conduct of the delinquent officer and proof in that behalf is not as high as in an offence in criminal charge. It is seen that invariably the departmental enquiry has to be conducted expeditiously so as to effectuate efficiency in public administration and the criminal trial will take its own course. The nature of evidence in criminal trial is entirely different from the departmental proceedings. In the former, prosecution is to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the touchstone of human conduct. The standard of proof in the departmental proceedings is not the same as of the criminal trial. The evidence also is different from the standard point of the Evidence Act. The evidence required in the departmental enquiry is not regulated by the Evidence Act. Under these circumstances, what is required to be seen is whether the departmental enquiry would seriously prejudice the delinquent in his defence at the trial in a criminal case. It is always a question of fact to be considered in each case depending on its own facts and circumstances. In this case, we have seen that the charge is failure to anticipate the accident and prevention thereof. It has nothing to do with the culpability of the offence under Sections 304-A and 338 IPC. Under these circumstances, the High Court was not right in staying the proceedings."
(emphasis supplied)
18. The exposition has been further affirmed by a three Judge Bench of this Court in Ajit Kumar Nag v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. This Court held as under: (SCC p. 776, para 11) "11. As far as acquittal of the appellant by a criminal court is 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREM SHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-09-2025 18:39:02 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45809 15 WP No.14691/2025 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: PREM SHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-09-2025 18:39:02 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45809 16 WP No.14691/2025 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. 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.Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREM SHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-09-2025 18:39:02
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45809 17 WP No.14691/2025 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."
20. 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREM SHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-09-2025 18:39:02 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45809 18 WP No.14691/2025 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 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)
21. 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREM SHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-09-2025 18:39:02 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45809 19 WP No.14691/2025 employee and desirability of continuing the delinquent officer in service in spite of such charges against him, the stay of disciplinary proceedings till the conclusion of criminal trial was unsustainable and accordingly has held as under:
"10. From the above, it is clear that the advisability, desirability or propriety, as the case may be, in regard to a departmental enquiry has to be determined in each case taking into consideration all facts and circumstances of the case. This judgment also lays down that the stay of departmental proceedings cannot be and should not be a matter of course.
11. In the instant case, from the order of the Tribunal as also from the impugned order of the High Court, we do not find that the two forums below have considered the special facts of this case which persuaded them to stay the departmental proceedings. On the contrary, a reading of the two impugned 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREM SHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-09-2025 18:39:02 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45809 20 WP No.14691/2025 seem to be almost similar to the facts of this case, held that the Tribunal fell in error in staying the disciplinary proceedings.
12. We think the above ratio of law laid down by this Court applies aptly to the facts of the present case also. It is also to be noted that in Capt. M. Paul Anthony case [(1999) 3 SCC 679 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 810] this Court has accepted the principle laid down in Rajasthan case [(1996) 6 SCC 417 :
1996 SCC (L&S) 1455].
13. As stated above, in the case in hand, both the Tribunal and the High Court proceeded as if a departmental enquiry and a criminal trial could not proceed simultaneously, hence, they stayed the departmental enquiry which by itself, in our opinion, is contrary to the principles laid down in the above cited cases. 14. We are of the opinion that both the Tribunal and the High Court proceeded on an erroneous legal principle without taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case and proceeded as if the stay of disciplinary proceedings is a must in every case where there is a criminal trial on the very same charges, in this background it is not necessary for us to go into the second question whether at least Charge 3 by itself could have been permitted to be decided in the departmental enquiry as contended alternatively by the learned counsel for the appellant."
(Emphasis supplied)
22. 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREM SHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-09-2025 18:39:02 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45809 21 WP No.14691/2025 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.
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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREM SHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-09-2025 18:39:02 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45809 22 WP No.14691/2025 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)
23. 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.
24. In the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sarvesh Berry reported in (2005) 10 SCC 471 it has been categorically held by the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREM SHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-09-2025 18:39:02 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45809 23 WP No.14691/2025 Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-8 thereof that crime is an act of commission in violation of law or omission of public duty whereas departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in service and efficiency of service and it not desirable to lay down any guideline or rules in which departmental proceedings may or may not be stayed pending trial in criminal case and each case requires to be considered in the backdrop of its own facts and circumstances.
25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in recent judgment in Civil Appeal No. 3586/2025 (Food Corporation of India & others Vs. Harish Prakash Hinunia) has held that in case of charges of corruption where the employee has been trapped while accepting bribe, preventing the employer from initiating departmental proceedings would not be proper and charges are serious and relating to discharge of duties and function of the employees in the Corporation. Consequently the Hon'ble Supreme Court set-aside the order of High Court and left it open for the Corporation to proceed with the enquiry. The Supreme Court has held as under:-
"6. Having considered the matter, we find that in the present facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the High Court is not justified. The respondent is said to have been the beneficiary of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) as bribe and for that, criminal case was instituted and departmental proceeding was proposed. Thus preventing the appellants from initiating the departmental proceeding would not be proper as the charge is serious and relates to the very discharge of the duties and functions of the respondent in the appellant- Corporation.Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREM SHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-09-2025 18:39:02
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45809 24 WP No.14691/2025
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."
26. The aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Food Corporation of India (supra) has in fact set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court which was relied by learned counsel for the petitioner whereby the Division Bench had stayed the departmental enquiry and left it open for the department to seek modification of the order after one year.
27. A Division Bench of this Court recently in W.A. No. 1753/2023 had kept in abeyance the departmental proceedings only for the period of six months and when the outcome of criminal trial was not forthcoming even after six months, then left it open for the employer to proceed with departmental proceedings as per law. However, in the present case more than two years have elapsed since presentation of challan and even recording of prosecution witnesses has not started in the criminal trial.
28. In view of the above, since charges were framed in criminal trial in May 2023 which is more than two years ago, it is not a fit case where the departmental enquiry should be kept stayed for any further time and the employer should be at liberty to enquire into the conduct of its officers who Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREM SHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-09-2025 18:39:02 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45809 25 WP No.14691/2025 are entrusted with posts of confidence and are alleged to have indulged in corrupt practices.
29. Consequently, the petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed, however, nothing contained in this order shall prejudice the petitioner in raising all defences available with him in departmental enquiry or in the criminal trial.
(VIVEK JAIN) JUDGE psm Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREM SHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-09-2025 18:39:02