Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Jatinder Nagpal vs Environment Forest And Climate Change on 17 September, 2025
1
Item No.31- (C-2)
O.A. No. 2206/2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 2206/2022
Reserved on: 21.08.2025
Pronounced on: 17.09.2025
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. B. Anand, Member (A)
JATINDER NAGPAL,
S/o Sh. R.S. Nagpal
R/o C-225, Hari Nagar, New Delhi -110064
Age- 48
Post- PS
Group- B
- Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Sudhir Nagar)
VERSUS
1. UNION OF INDIA
Through
Secretary
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change
Indira Paryavaran Bhawan
Jorbagh Road, Aliganj, New Delhi - 110003.
2. Deputy Secretary (Vigilance)
Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change
Vigilance Division Room No. 402.
- Respondents
(By Advocates: Mr. Ashish Rai)
2
Item No.31- (C-2)
O.A. No. 2206/2022
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. B.Anand, Member (A):
The applicant herein was issued a charge memorandum dated 29.06.2022, wherein the Articles of Charge are set out as under:
"That Shri Jatinder Nagpal, Private Secretary (P.S.) while functioning as Private Secretary (P.S.) in MoEF&CC during the year 2015was alleged to have been involved in procuring/obtaining/stealing the official/secret documents of several Ministries, with the. help of his associates in Ministries. Shri Nagpal was alleged to have thecommon E-mail ID [email protected] which he used to share official/secret documents of several Ministries to his associates in several Ministries and to several other prospective persons. Further, Shri Nagpal was alleged to have forwarded many important documents on other e-mail IDs to Madhu Nenon, Lovit Robertson and others."
2. Aggrieved by the charge memorandum, the applicant has approached this Tribunal by filing the present O.A. on 16.08.2022, seeking stay of the said charge memorandum and the consequent disciplinary proceedings. The Tribunal, vide its interim order dated 28.08.2022, granted interim relief on the submission of the applicant who relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr., reported in (1999) SC 1416 that the disciplinary proceedings and the connected criminal case are founded on identical and similar set of facts. The applicant, being aggrieved by the impugned charge memorandum dated 29.06.2022, as referred to hereinabove, has sought the following relief(s):-"
3
Item No.31- (C-2) O.A. No. 2206/2022 "A. Quash and set aside the impugned Office Memorandum dated 29.06.2022 (Annexure A/ 1);
B. Direct the respondents to keep the disciplinary inquiry against the applicant in abeyance till the ' pendency of the criminal trial in FIR No. 20/2015 dated 22.02.2015;
C. Pass such other order(s) or direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. The undisputed brief factual matrix of the case, as borne out from the records, is that the applicant, while working as 'Private Secretary' to the Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, was served with the charge-memo issued by the respondents on account of his arrest by the Crime Branch of Delhi Police on 25.02.2015 in a criminal case relating to the seizure of certain official documents from his possession outside of his office. Consequent thereto, the respondents placed the applicant under suspension by order dated 04.03.2015, with effect from 25.02.2015, in view of his detention in police custody for a period exceeding 48 hours, as stipulated under sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
4. The respondents learnt from the letter dated 23.02.2016 written by the Delhi Police that during the Police interrogation, the applicant admitted that he had procured important documents of Ministry of Petroleum, Coal & Power in connivance with the other 4 Item No.31- (C-2) O.A. No. 2206/2022 accused persons for the purpose of selling these documents to private clients in lieu of monetary consideration. They also learnt that the charge-sheet had been filed against the applicant before the court of Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 23.04.2015 and the applicant was enlarged on bail on 26.05.2015 after having spent more than 3 months in custody.
5. The respondents, vide order dated 09.08.2021, revoked the suspension of the applicant and reinstated him in service with effect from 07.08.2021. Subsequently, they chose to issue a charge- memo dated 29.06.2022, taking note of the fact that the applicant had admitted before the Crime Branch of Delhi Police that he had procured important documents of the Ministries of Petroleum, Coal, and Power in connivance with other accused persons for their subsequent sale for monetary consideration.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks a stay on the charge- memorandum dated 29.06.2022 on the ground that the proposed departmental inquiry pertains to the very same allegations which are also the subject matter of a pending criminal trial. It is submitted that the Police, upon conclusion of the investigation in the connected FIR, has already filed its report before the concerned trial court, where the matter is pending further consideration. The charge-memorandum is further assailed on the ground that the list 5 Item No.31- (C-2) O.A. No. 2206/2022 of documents enclosed with the impugned charge-memo by the respondents comprises five documents and two witnesses, all of which form part of the charge-sheet filed before the court in the parallel criminal proceedings.
7. The learned counsel for the applicant also assails the charge- memo on the ground that the statements made by the co-accused persons, who have been arrayed as witnesses in the charge- memorandum, and recorded by the Police officials while in custody, are inadmissible in law and carry no sanctity.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant also states that the continuation of the disciplinary proceedings would compel the applicant to disclose his defence therein, thereby jeopardizing his defence in the criminal trial. He also states that the only evidence on the basis of which the respondents are proposing charge- memorandum against the applicant is a Police report and the statements given by the two witnesses who are also co-accused to the Police authorities, which are not cognizable in law. In other words, the entire disciplinary proceedings is nothing but a mini trial before the commencement of the criminal trial in the concerned court.
9. The Learned counsel for the applicant is relying upon the following three judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in support of 6 Item No.31- (C-2) O.A. No. 2206/2022 his stand that the departmental disciplinary proceedings cannot be allowed to continue when on the same set of facts, witnesses and documents which are common to both the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal trial, if the disciplinary proceedings are allowed to continue, it would jeopardize the defence of the applicant in the pending criminal trial:
1. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr., (1999) 3 SCC 679.
2. State Bank of India & Ors. v. Neelam Nag, (2016) 9 SCC 491.
3. G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2006) 5 SCC 446.
10. The learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant and made an impassioned plea for vacating the interim stay dated 22.08.2022 granted in respect of the charge-memorandum, as well as resisting the reliefs prayed for by the applicant.
11. By way of a short reply, the respondents are stating that the act of issuance of the charge-memorandum is neither bad in law nor it amounts to contempt of court as verbalized by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jang Bahadur Singh vs.Baij Nath Tiwari, (1969) AIR 30, 1969 SCR (1) 134):
"The issue in the disciplinary proceedings is whether the employee is guilty of the charges on which it is proposed to take action against him. The same issue may arise for decision in a civil or criminal proceeding pending in a court. But the 7 Item No.31- (C-2) O.A. No. 2206/2022 pendency of the court proceeding does not bar the taking of disciplinary action. The power of asking such action is vested in the disciplinary authority. The civil or criminal court has no such power. The initiation and continuation of disciplinary proceedings in good faith is not calculated to obstruct or interfere with the course of justice in the pending court proceedings. The employee is free to move the court for an order restraining the continuance of the disciplinary proceedings. If he obtains a stay order, a willful violation of the order would of course amount to contempt of court. In the absence of a stay order the disciplinary authority is free to exercise its lawful powers."
12. Learned counsel for the respondents has further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Depot Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporationvs. Mohd. Yousuf, 1997 I LLJ 902 SC, wherein it was held that:-
"Ther is no bar to proceed simultaneously with the department inquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the charge in the criminal case is of a grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law."
13. Learned counsel for the respondents further submit that the continuation of the interim relief granted by this Tribunal on 22.08.2022 would enable the applicant to take undue advantage of the pendency of the criminal proceedings so as to delay and avoid the departmental inquiry. It is further contended that the continuation of the departmental proceedings is in no manner detrimental to the applicant's defence in the pending criminal trial.
14. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, we have also carefully perused the pleadings available on record.
8Item No.31- (C-2) O.A. No. 2206/2022
15. It is seen that the charge against the applicant contained in para 1 is grave; however, it is learnt that even after lapse of more than 10 years of the occurrence of the incident and the arrest of the applicant on 25.02.2015. The charge is yet to be taken cognizance of by the competent court and, therefore, the criminal proceedings are yet to commence. In the absence of the cognizance of the charge-sheet by the competent court, we do not know whether the charge involves complicated questions of fact and law. The law on the subject is contained in M. Paul Anthony (supra) case. The relevant para 22 of the said judgment 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 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.9
Item No.31- (C-2) O.A. No. 2206/2022
(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."
16. We are of the view that it would also be in the interest of the applicant to initiate and conclude the departmental proceedings so that, if found not guilty, he may be honourably exonerated, rather than continuing under a cloud and being unable to discharge his duties efficiently in the Government.
17. We are of the considered view that the mere pendency of a criminal case against the applicant cannot be the sole ground to keep the charge-memo in abeyance. In this regard, we derive guidance from the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in sub- para (v) of para 22 of M. Paul Anthony (supra).
18. As already noted, in the absence of the charge-sheet filed before the competent court, we are unable to definitively ascertain whether the case involves complicated questions of law and fact. Had it been crystal clear that such complicated questions of law and fact were involved, it might have been desirable to stay the disciplinary proceedings until the conclusion of the criminal case.
19. We are also conscious of the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed, particularly since the 10 Item No.31- (C-2) O.A. No. 2206/2022 incident pertains to more than ten years ago and the interim relief in favour of the applicant has continued for the last three years and in the meanwhile the criminal case has not made satisfactory progress . Guided by sub-para (v) of para 22 of the judgment in M. Paul Anthony (supra), we categorically state that the ends of justice would be fully met, if the applicant is allowed to face the disciplinary proceedings in their entirety and, if found not guilty, be honourably exonerated.
20. In this regard, we also place reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India vs. Neelam Nag (supra). The relevant paras 8, 9 &12 of the said judgment read as under:-
"8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. The only question that arises for consideration, is no more res-integra. It is well-settled that there is no legal bar to the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings and criminal trial simultaneously. However, no straightjacket formula can be spelt out and the Court has to keep in mind the broad approach to be adopted in such matters on case-to-case basis. The contour of the approach to be adopted by the Court has been delineated in series of decisions. This Court in Karnataka SRTC vs. M.G. Vittal Rao has summed up the same in the following words:
"(i) There is no legal bar for both the proceedings to go on simultaneously.
(ii) The only valid ground for claiming that the disciplinary proceedings may be stayed would be to ensure that the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced. But even such grounds would be available only in cases involving complex questions of facts or law.
(iii) Such defence ought not to be permitted to unnecessarily delay the departmental proceedings. The 11 Item No.31- (C-2) O.A. No. 2206/2022 interest of the delinquent officer as well as the employer clearly lies in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.
(iv) Departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously to the criminal trial, except where both the proceedings are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common."
9. The recent decision relied by the appellant in the case of (supraStanzen), has adverted to the relevant decisions including the case of M.G.Vittal Rao (supra). After adverting to· those decisions, in paragraph 16, this Court opined 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."
XXXXX
12. In the peculiar facts of the present case, therefore, we accede to the contention of the appellants that the pendency of the criminal case against the respondent cannot be the sole basis to suspend the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent for an indefinite period; and in larger public interest, the order as passed in Stanzen's case be followed even in the fact situation of the present case, to balance the equities."
21. We also rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Cout in G.M. Tank (supra). While deciding that case, the Hon'ble Apex 12 Item No.31- (C-2) O.A. No. 2206/2022 Court referred to para 8 of the judgment in Depot Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (supra), which reads as under:
"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 duty, as distinguished from mere private rights punishable under criminal law. When trial for criminal offence is conducted it should be in accordance with proof of the offence as per the evidence defined under the provisions of the Evidence Act. Converse is the case of departmental enquiry. The enquiry in a departmental proceedings relates to conduct or breach of duty of the delinquent officer to punish him for his misconduct defined under the relevant statutory rules or law. That the strict standard of proof or applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded is a settled legal position. 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, 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."
22. The judgment in G.M. Tank (supra) relied upon by the applicant does not assist him, as the facts and legal position in the present case are distinguishable.
13Item No.31- (C-2) O.A. No. 2206/2022
23. In view of the foregoing discussion, and guided by the principles laid down in M. Paul Anthony (supra), Neelam Nag (supra) and G.M. Tank (supra), we find no reason to interfere with the charge-memorandum.
24. Accordingly, the O.A. is dismissed. The respondents are permitted to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings expeditiously. The interim order dated 22.08.2022 stands vacated. No order as to costs.
25. Pending MA(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.
(B.Anand) (R.N. Singh) Member (A) Member (J) /anjali/