Madhya Pradesh High Court
Subedar Ojha vs Northern Coal Field Ltd Sigraauli on 27 June, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
WRIT PETITION No. 3097 of 2025
SUBEDAR OJHA
Versus
NORTHERN COAL FIELD LTD SIGRAAULI
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal - Senior Advocate with Shri Piyush Bhatnagar -
Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Prashant Singh - Senior Advocate with Mrs. Kanak Gaharwar -
Advocate for the respondent - Northern Coal Field Ltd.
ORDER
(Reserved on: 18.06.2025) (Pronounced on : 27.06.2025) By way of present petition the petitioner has called into question the charge sheet Annexure P-3 dated 04.12.2024 issued by the respondent employer Northern Coal Fields Ltd., which is a subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. Alternative prayer is made to order to keep the departmental proceedings initiated pursuant to the charge sheet Annexure P-3 in abeyance till conclusion of criminal trial initiated in pursuance to FIR registered by the C.B.I. relating to the same set of transactions and allegations.
2. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is working on the post of Manager (Secretarial) in Northern Coal Fields Ltd. which is a subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. and a Mini Ratna Public Sector Undertaking of Government of India. It is the contention of the petitioner Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 28-06-2025 14:36:39 that an FIR was registered by the C.B.I. at R.C. 2172024A0012 on 17.08.2024 for offences under Sections 61(2) of BNS and Section 7-A and 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is argued that in the said FIR, allegations are there that a bribe amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs was paid to certain officials of C.B.I., who were investigating certain dealings between a firm known as M/s Sangam Engineering and officials of Northern Coal Fields Ltd. In order to manage the C.B.I. officials investigating those complaints, a bribe of Rs.5.00 lakhs was being delivered to Investigating Officers of C.B.I. and the matter was detected and FIR was registered against various officials of C.B.I. itself and officers of NCL and other persons. It is argued that the allegation against the petitioner is relating to trail of money of bribe of Rs.5.00 lakhs and petitioner is stated to have sent the bribe amount for being delivered through intermediaries to C.B.I. officials.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that investigation in the said case has been completed by C.B.I. and charge sheet has been presented on 15.10.2024 pursuance to FIR dated 17.08.2024 and as per the charge sheet various documents have been relied by the C.B.I., which includes documents No.7, 29 & 77 of Annexure B to criminal charge sheet, which are arrest-cum- search memo of the petitioner, search list of residential premises of the petitioner and documents related to temporary complaint. It is argued that further proceedings before the Special Court (C.B.I.), Jabalpur in pursuance to the said charge sheet are pending and the petitioner intends to place all his Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 28-06-2025 14:36:39 defences in the said trial before the concerned Court as and when the said case comes up for evidence or at any other appropriate stage in the said proceedings.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that in relation to the same matter a charge sheet has been issued to him by his employer, i.e. NCL comprising the same set of allegations, which are sought to be established by certain documents, which are common to the charge sheet in the departmental proceedings and challan of criminal case. It is stated that documents No.7, 29 & 77 of criminal challan as referred above are documents No.3, 4 & 5 of the departmental charge sheet issued to the petitioner vide Annexure P-3. Therefore, in sum and substance the challenge by the petitioner to the departmental charge sheet is on account of parallel proceedings being drawn. On ground of parallel proceedings being drawn against him by the employer, same are criticized on the ground that the employer is not authorized to institute parallel proceedings to investigate the matter once the matter is subject matter of criminal trial. In an alternative, it is argued that since there are commonality of various documents between criminal case and departmental proceedings, therefore, the department ought to have waited for outcome of the criminal case.
5. It is further argued that two witnesses, who are named in departmental charge sheet (Annexure P-3) namely Surendra Rohilla and Ajay Kumar Rai, are witnesses No.84 & 34 in criminal case also as per charge sheet presented by the C.B.I. Therefore, the bare minimum that the respondent department was expected to do was to postpone examination of witnesses, who are common Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 28-06-2025 14:36:39 between criminal case and departmental proceedings upto the date when these witnesses are cross-examined by the petitioner in the criminal trial, because if the petitioner puts any question to these two witnesses in departmental proceedings, then his defence would be disclosed to the respondents and these two witnesses may change their statements in the criminal trial by covering up the defence of the petitioner, which he intends to take in the criminal trial. Therefore, the surprise element which the petitioner intends to take advantage in criminal trial would be lost and it would be oppressive upon the petitioner to disclose his defence to these witnesses prior to they being examined in criminal trial. It would result in denial of fair trial to the petitioner, which is the hallmark of criminal justice system of this country and this Court should stepin to protect the rights and defences of the petitioner so that a fair trial could be ensured by permitting the petitioner to keep his defence within himself prior to the same witnesses being examined in criminal trial.
6. In support of his averments, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on various judgments, not apply on the case of M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., (1999) 3 SCC 679 and Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. v. Girish V., (2014) 3 SCC 636 so also certain judgments passed by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court, wherein it has been held that the delinquent employee in departmental proceedings cannot be forced to open his defence to the witnesses in criminal trial and he cannot be forced to cross-examine the witnesses in departmental enquiry before the same witnesses being examined in trial of Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 28-06-2025 14:36:39 criminal case. On strength of such judgments, it is argued that in criminal trial the accused is having a right to remain silent whereas in departmental enquiry if he remains silent, then there would be presumption by way of preponderance of probability against the employee and therefore, if the defence of the petitioner is disclosed in departmental proceedings, then the witnesses would cover up the said aspect in their deposition in criminal trial and the right of the petitioner to remain silent in trial would be adversely prejudiced.
7. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the petition. It is contended that it is not a simple case of criminal trial and departmental proceedings on the same set of facts. It is contended that the criminal trial is primarily concerned with the offer and handing over of bribe money of Rs.5.00 lakhs to C.B.I. Officers in relation to some other unconnected investigation being conducted by C.B.I. and the affairs of NCL. It is vehemently argued that during the course of investigation by C.B.I. in this case when the office and residential house of the petitioner was searched by the C.B.I., then huge stash of money was recovered from the residence of the petitioner amounting to Rs.3.85 crores and further amount of Rs.1.12 lakhs from his office. It is argued that the criminal case is not concerned with recovery of this huge amount of almost Rs.4.00 crores from the residence and office of the petitioner, which was a incidental discovery made in course of investigation of FIR relating to bribe money of Rs.5.00 lakhs. The FIR in criminal case and the challan in that case do not relate to the source of funds of the said money found Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 28-06-2025 14:36:39 in possession of the petitioner to the tune of almost Rs.4.00 crores and the petitioner being Manager (Secretarial) of NCL, the employer is having all the right to enquire about its officer being in possession of such a huge stash of money, which is many many times disproportionate to his known sources of income. It is further contended that as per the service rules applicable to NCL namely Coal India Executives Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, the activities of the petitioner amount to an independent misconduct and the employer is having all the right to carry out enquiry into the said (mis)conduct of the petitioner and to take appropriate action against him in the matter of discovery of huge cash of almost Rs.4.00 crores from his residence and office.
8. Even to the alternative prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner may not be forced to cross-examine two witnesses namely Surendra Rohilla and Ajay Kumar Rai in departmental proceedings till these two witnesses are examined in criminal trial, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed this prayer. It has been argued that even in the judgments relied by learned counsel for the petitioner, no thumb rule has been laid down that the departmental enquiry proceedings having common witnesses cannot proceed unless the same witnesses are examined in the criminal trial. It is argued that in the present case, there is distinction of charges and scope of enquiry in criminal case and the departmental enquiry. Further it is argued that the criminal trial has as many as 84 witnesses proposed to prove the charges against the accused persons and the number of accused persons is also Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 28-06-2025 14:36:39 as many as six, who are Officers of the C.B.I. as well as Officers of NCL. The criminal trial having proposed 84 witnesses to prove the charges and as many as 135 documents in support of proof of those charges is not expected to conclude in near future. The said trial will consume a lot of time having 84 witnesses with 135 documents. Therefore, if the relief is granted to the petitioner it effectively would amount to scuttling the departmental enquiry once and for all and forever because the petitioner would most likely retire by conclusion of criminal case and even otherwise; there is no commonality of charges and scope of enquiry in departmental proceedings and criminal trial. On these submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the petition.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents also relies on anumber of judgments to submit that mechanically in every case departmental enquiry cannot be stayed till conclusion of criminal trial and also that it is settled law that scope of enquiry in criminal trial is totally different from scope of enquiry in departmental proceedings, because in departmental proceedings preponderance of probabilities is the standard while in criminal trial the charges have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner, who has exhibited a gravely dubious conduct upon recovery of Rs.3.85/- crores cash from his residence should not be interfered with in any manner so as to scuttle the inquiry or in any manner to impede the speed and progress of the enquiry, because it will be counter protective to ends of justice and would about to the petitioner getting undue benefit and advantage on Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 28-06-2025 14:36:39 account of technicalities of law. On these ground it is prayed to dismiss the petition.
10. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties.
11. In the present case the petitioner has raised two fold submissions. First submission is that during pendency of criminal trial the departmental enquiry should not at all be held and the charge sheet should be quashed, however another alternative plea was raised that even if the charge sheet may not be quashed then at least this much relief be given to the petitioner that the two common witnesses in the criminal case and departmental enquiry should not be examined in the departmental enquiry prior to they being cross-examined by the petitioner in the criminal trial. These two witnesses are SurendraRohilla and Ajay Kumar Rai who are named as the only two witnesses in the departmental enquiry and are witnesses number 84 and 34 in the criminal case as per the charge sheet presented by the CBI before the Special Court.
12. Upon going through the documents placed on record, it is evident that initially the FIR was registered by the CBI on 17.08.2024. Thereafter investigation ensued and charge sheet has been filed before the Special Court on 15.10.2024 by the CBI against 6 accused persons out of whom some are officers of NCL, some are officers of CBI itself and some are private persons.
13. Upon perusal of the challan placed on record as Annexure P-2 which has been presented by the CBI before the Special Court, it is evident that the charge sheet alleges that one Ravi Shankar Singh, Director of a firm M/s Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 28-06-2025 14:36:39 Sangam Engineering was in connivance with some officers of NCL and other persons and collection of bribe money was being made to deliver the said money to some officers of Anti Corruption Branch, CBI Jabalpur for obtaining favourable reports in the matters of complaints and enquiries pending against them before the CBI. Accused Ravi Shankar Singh was acting as middle man between officers of NCL and CBI officers. The investigation for which the bribe money was being collected is neither the subject matter of criminal charge sheet nor departmental enquiry and those were certain unconnected matters for getting favour in which bribe money was being collected and delivered.
14. The charge sheet also alleges that there was a conspiracy between Ravi Shankar Singh and Tej Pratap Singh to lodge complaints against officers of NCL regarding their corrupt and illegal activities to Government agencies and subsequently to get these complaints settled through corrupt and illegal means for their personal gains. It is further alleged in the challan of criminal case that accused Ravi Shankar Singh entered into a criminal conspiracy with present petitioner and present petitioner got arranged delivery of illegal gratification of Rs.5.00 Lakhs from co-accused B. K. Singh to Ajay Verma, an employee of co-accused Ravi Shankar Singh, for settlement of complaints and removal of name of B.K. Singh from the agreed list of NCL officers in the office of CBI Jabalpur. The relevant portion of the charge sheet narrating the allegations so far as present petitioner is concerned are set out in para 16.71, 16.72 and 16.73 of the charge sheet which are as under:-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 28-06-2025 14:36:39
"16.71 Investigation has further established that Ravi Shankar Singh (A-4) further entered into criminal |conspiracy with J.J. Damle (A-1) to get settled the complaints/cases/Agreed List inclusion of NCL officers including B.K, Singh (A-2)in the office of CBI, ACB, Jabalpur through JJ. Damle (A-1) by corrupt and illegal means for their personal gain. In pursuance of the said conspiracy, Ravi Shankar Singh (A-4) arranged delivery of illegal gratification of Rs. 5lakh from B.K. Singh through Subedar Ojha and got delivered illegal gratification of Rs.5 lakh through Kumar Diwesh Singh (A-5) to J.J. Damle on 17.08.2024. J.J. Damle(A-1) and Kumar Diwesh Singh (A-.5) were trapped by CBI Team in the presence of independent witnesses, while delivering and accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 5 lakh on 17.08.2024. These allegations have been proved through mobile data of Ravi Shanker Singh (A-4) and J.J. Damle (A-1) in relation to various complaints against i.e Ravi Shankar Singh (A-4) himself, B.K. Singh (A-2), D.N. Singh, (ii) :delivery of iPhone, (iii) SIM card in the name of other persons being provided by Ravi Shankar Singh (A-4) and (iv) recorded conversations etc. 16.72 Investigation has further established that in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy, Ravi -Shankar Singh (A-4) further entered into criminal conspiracy with SubedarOjha (A-3) to get settled the Agreed List inclusion of B. K Singh (A-2) from the office of CBI, ACB, Jabalpur through J.J. Damle (A-1) on the basis of obtaining illegal gratification from B.K. Singh (A-2) by corrupt and illegal means and for their personal gain. In pursuance of the criminal conspiracy Subedar Ojha got arranged delivery of illegal gratification of Rs. 5 lakh from B.K.Singh (A-2) to Mr. Ajay Verma, employee of Ravi Shankar Singh (A-4) on16. 08 2024 for settlement of the complaint and removal of the name of B.K. Singh from the Agreed List of NCL offcers in the office of CBI, ACB, Jabalpur through Ravi Shankar Singh. These facts have been proved through recorded conversations, circumstantial evidence based on face time calls between accused persons at the relevant date and time making of call by BK, Singh (A-2)at the time of 7delivery of illegal gratification, Whatsapp message sent by BK. Singh (A-2) to Subedar Ojha (A-3) after delivery of illegal gratification of Rs. 5 Lakh on 16. 08. 2024 wherein he sent a message to SubedarOjha i.e. 'Done.', recovery of cash amount from the office & house of SubedarOjha and statement of Mr. Manish Kumar, Director, Personnel, NCL.
16.73 Investigation has farther established that in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy Ravi Shankar Singh (A-4) further entered into criminal conspiracy with Kumar Diwesh Singh (A-5) to get delivered illegal gratification to J.J. Damle (A-1). In pursuance of the: said criminal conspiracy, at the instance of Ravi Shanker Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 28-06-2025 14:36:39 Singh (A-4), Kumar Diwesh Singh(A-5) collected illegal gratification of Rs. 5Lakh from Mr. Ajay Verma, employee of Ravi Shankar Singh(A-4) and delivered it to J.J. Dame (A-1) at SBI Chowk, Jabalpur on 17.08.2024. These facts have been proved through recorded conversations, circumstantial evidence based on face time calls, regular calls between accused persons at relevant date and time and the delivery of illegal gratification of Rs. 5 Lakh to J.J Damle on 17.08.2024. Kumar Diwesh Singh (A-5) had also paid illegal gratification of Rs. 2 Lakh on 21.03 2024, received from Mr. Punit Kumar Varshney, Sr. Manager (Finance), NCL for not implicating the name of Mr. Punit Kuinar Varshney in the Trap case of Sayeed Ghori, GM, NCL."
15. From perusal of the aforesaid contents of the charge sheet containing the allegations against the present petitioner it is evident that the charge sheet in no way is concerned about recovery of a huge stash of cash of Rs. 3.85 Crores from the residence of petitioner and Rs.1.12 Lakh from the office of petitioner. That was a incidental discovery made by the CBI when the CBI searched the office and residence of petitioner while carrying out investigation of the criminal case. The charge sheet does not allege anything about the said discovery.
16. The petitioner is holding the post Manager (Secretarial) in NCL and it cannot be disputed that recovery of cash of Rs.3.85 crore from the residence of any public servant would lead to some suspicion and presumption not only in the eyes of the employer but of every person who is even a lay person of the public, that some dubious practices were going on which led to the employee keeping huge stash of cash in his possession in his residence. The employer would naturally like to enquire into the matter and the consequential action taken by the employer to initiate enquiry against the petitioner is a natural Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 28-06-2025 14:36:39 action which would be done by every employer in case such huge a huge amount of cash is recovered from the residence of its employee.
17. It is also important to note that the offences alleged against the petitioner in the criminal challan are not under Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act that relate to disproportionate assets compared to sources of income but are only under Sections 61(2) of BNS read with Section 7, 7-A and 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. This further clears the position that the criminal case is not concerned with the discovery of huge stash of money from the residence of petitioner.
18. Coming to the Departmental charge sheet issued against the petitioner by respondents vide (Annexure P-3) it is evident that the imputations as contained in the charge sheet are summarized in the concluding paragraphs of statements of imputation in the following manner:-
"Thereafter during search substantial cash of Rs 3,85,55,400.00 and Rs.1,12,500.00 was recovered from the house and office of Shri Subedar Ojha respectively. Subsequently, Shri Joy Joseph Damle, Shri Basant Kumar Singh, Shri Subedar Ojha, Shri Ravi Shankar Singh and Shri Kumar Diwesh Singh were arrested on 18.08.2024 by CBI. Thus, Shri Subedar Ojha, by facilitating in delivery of bribe amount of Rs 5 Lakhs from Shri Basant Kumar Singh to Shri Joy Joseph Damle, CBI Officer through Shri Ajay Verma and Shri Kumar Diwesh Singh, involved in the conspiracy of giving bribe.
Thus, Shri Subedar Ojha acted in a manner unbecoming of a public servant and failed to maintain absolute integrity which tarnished the image and was detrimental to the interests of the Company."
19. This imputation of charges as contained in the charge sheet leaves nothing to imagination that the employer is primarily concerned with recovery of huge stash of cash of Rs.3.85 crores from the residence of petitioner apart Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 28-06-2025 14:36:39 from Rs.1.12 Lakh from his office. Though the charge sheet also mentions the petitioner having acted as source of supplier of funds between officers of NCL on one hand and CBI officers on the other hand through middleman. However, the employer is concerned with the discovery of huge stash of cash which was an incidental discovery made during the course of investigation by CBI into the FIR and from perusal of the criminal challan it appears that the CBI is not at all concerned about the said cash and is only concerned about the delivery of bribe of Rs.5.00 Lakhs to CBI officers and trail of money of that bribe amount.
20. From the aforesaid facts, it appears that there is not a substantial similarity of charges in criminal trial and in departmental enquiry. The two persons who are common witnesses namely Surendra Rohilla and Ajay Kumar Rai are the investigating officer of the criminal case and Office Superintendent of West Central Railway, Jabalpur relating to trap proceedings of CBI officer namely J.J. Damle and K.D. Singh. On the other hand, the search of office and residence of petitioner was witnessed by Ms. Nancy Sharma and Mr. Rehan Parvez who though are arrayed as witnesses in the criminal case as witnesses No.48 and 49 but not are named as witnesses in the departmental enquiry.
21. The counsel for the petitioner has miserably failed to establish that what prejudice would be caused by cross-examination of Surendra Rohilla and Ajay Kumar Rai in the departmental proceedings because these two persons are not witnesses of recovery of cash from the petitioner. If the petitioner wants to explain the source of cash of Rs.3.85 crores in the departmental enquiry, he can Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 28-06-2025 14:36:39 explain the said source and from the entire documents placed on record and arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that the cross- examination of these two witnesses who are officers of CBI and Indian Railways respectively, the petitioner would in no manner be prejudiced to explain recovery of huge cash of Rs.3.85 crores from his residential premises.
22. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court on facts it does not appear that petitioner would be prejudiced by the cross-examination of Surendra Rohilla and Ajay Kumar Rai in the departmental enquiry before they being put up for cross-examination in the criminal trial.
23. Moreover, it cannot be disputed that looking to 84 witnesses and 135 documents sought to be examined and produced in the criminal trial, the said trial is expected to consume lot of time and if the departmental proceedings are postponed pending statements of these two witnesses in the criminal trial one of whom is the last proposed witness, then effectively it would amount to departmental enquiry being scuttled for a long period of time and possibly even till the retirement of the petitioner.
24. The employer enquiring into discovery of almost Rs. 4.00 crores cash from residence and office of its employee is not a gravely complicated question of law and fact because the employee is only required to explain the source of funds, though the utilization of small portion of such funds to pay bribe is the main question in the criminal case.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 28-06-2025 14:36:39
25. 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 (supra) so also in the case of G.M. Tank Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr. reported in (2006) 5 SCC 446. Though this Court has already come to conclusion that effectively the commonality of charges and witnesses in the departmental enquiry and criminal trial are not such that it warrants postponement of departmental enquiry till the witnesses are examined in the criminal trial, still this Court proceeds to deal with the legal issue raised by learned counsel for the petitioner.
26. Even 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 Shashi Bhushan Prasad Vs. Inspector General Central Industrial Security Force and others (2019) 7 SCC 797 had the occasion to consider the judgment of G.M. Tank (supra) and after considering the law on the subject 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 28-06-2025 14:36:39 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 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."
27. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Power Transaction Corporation Limited Vs. C. Nagaraju and another 2019 (10) SCC 367has 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 28-06-2025 14:36:39 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 para11 :
"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. 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."
28. 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.
29. 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 28-06-2025 14:36:39 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 (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."
30.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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 28-06-2025 14:36:39 enough to determine the question unless the charge involves complicated question of law and fact. The court examining the question must also keep in mind that criminal trials get prolonged indefinitely especially where the number of accused arraigned for trial is large as is the case at hand and so are the number of witnesses cited by the prosecution. The court, therefore, has to draw a balance between the need for a fair trial to the accused on the one hand and the competing demand for an expeditious conclusion of the ongoing disciplinary proceedings on the other. An early conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings has itself been seen by this Court to be in the interest of the employees."
(Emphasis supplied)
31. The Supreme Court in the case of Shashi Bhushan Prasad v. CISF, reported in (2019) 7 SCC 797 has held as under :
"17. The scope of departmental enquiry and judicial proceedings and the effect of acquittal by a criminal court have been examined by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in A.P. SRTC v. Mohd. YousufMiya. The relevant paragraph is as under: (SCC pp. 704- 05, para 8) "8. ... The purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution are two different and distinct aspects. The criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of a duty, the offender owes to the society or for breach of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. So crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. It would, therefore, be expedient that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible. It is not, therefore, desirable to lay down any guidelines as inflexible rules in which the departmental proceedings may or may not 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 28-06-2025 14:36:39 infringement of public (sic duty), as distinguished from mere private rights punishable under criminal law. When trial for criminal offence is conducted it should be in accordance with proof of the offence as per the evidence defined under the provisions of the Evidence Act. Converse is the case of departmental enquiry. The enquiry in a departmental proceeding relates to conduct or breach of duty of the delinquent officer to punish him for his misconduct defined under the relevant statutory rules or law. That the strict standard of proof or applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded is a settled legal position. The enquiry in the departmental proceedings relates to the conduct of the delinquent officer and proof in that behalf is not as high as in an offence in criminal charge. It is seen that invariably the departmental enquiry has to be conducted expeditiously so as to effectuate efficiency in public administration and the criminal trial will take its own course. The nature of evidence in criminal trial is entirely different from the departmental proceedings. In the former, prosecution is to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the touchstone of human conduct. The standard of proof in the departmental proceedings is not the same as of the criminal trial. The evidence also is different from the standard point of the Evidence Act. The evidence required in the departmental enquiry is not regulated by the Evidence Act. Under these circumstances, what is required to be seen is whether the departmental enquiry would seriously prejudice the delinquent in his defence at the trial in a criminal case. It is always a question of fact to be considered in each case depending on its own facts and circumstances. In this case, we have seen that the charge is failure to anticipate the accident and prevention thereof. It has nothing to do with the culpability of the offence under Sections 304-A and 338 IPC. Under these circumstances, the High Court was not right in staying the proceedings." (emphasis supplied)
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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 28-06-2025 14:36:39 criminal court would not debar an employer from exercising power in accordance with the Rules and Regulations in force. The two proceedings, criminal and departmental, are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on the offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with the service rules. In a criminal trial, incriminating statement made by the accused in certain circumstances or before certain officers is totally inadmissible in evidence. Such strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental proceedings. The degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency. The rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused "beyond reasonable doubt", he cannot be convicted by a court of law. In a departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of "preponderance of probability".
Acquittal of the appellant by a Judicial Magistrate, therefore, does not ipso facto absolve him from the liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Corporation. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the contention of the appellant that since he was acquitted by a criminal court, the impugned order dismissing him from service deserves to be quashed and set aside."
19. We are in full agreement with the exposition of law laid down by this Court and it is fairly well settled that two proceedings criminal and departmental are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on an offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with the service rules. The degree of 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 28-06-2025 14:36:39 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.
(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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 28-06-2025 14:36:39 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."
32. The Supreme Court in the case of Depot Manager, A.P. SRTC v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya, reported in (1997) 2 SCC 699 has held as under :-
"8. We are in respectful agreement with the above view. The purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution is two different and distinct aspects. The criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of a duty, the offender owes to the society or for breach of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. So crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. It would, therefore, be expedient that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible. It is not, therefore, desirable to lay down any guidelines as inflexible rules in which the departmental proceedings may or may not be stayed pending trial in criminal case against the delinquent officer. Each case requires to be considered in the backdrop of its own facts and circumstances. There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental enquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the charge in the criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law. Offence generally implies infringement of public (sic duty), as distinguished from mere private rights punishable under criminal law. When trial for criminal offence is conducted it should be in accordance with proof of the offence as per the evidence defined under the provisions of the Evidence Act. Converse is the case of departmental enquiry. The enquiry in a departmental proceedings relates to conduct or breach of duty of the delinquent officer to punish him for his misconduct defined under the relevant statutory rules or law. That the strict standard of 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 28-06-2025 14:36:39 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)
33. The Supreme Court in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others v. T. Srinivas, reported in (2004) 7 SCC 442 has held that while staying the departmental proceedings, the Court must take into consideration the seriousness of charges alleged against the employee. Where the charge is in relation to acceptance of illegal gratification by employee and desirability of continuing the delinquent officer in service in spite of such charges against him, the stay of disciplinary proceedings till the conclusion of criminal trial was unsustainable and accordingly has held as under:
"10. From the above, it is clear that the advisability, desirability or propriety, as the case may be, in regard to a departmental enquiry has to be determined in each case taking into consideration all facts and circumstances of the case. This judgment also lays down that the stay of departmental proceedings cannot be and should not be a matter of course. 1
1. 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 28-06-2025 14:36:39 persuaded them to stay the departmental proceedings. On the contrary, a reading of the two impugned orders indicates that both the Tribunal and the High Court proceeded as if a departmental enquiry had to be stayed in every case where a criminal trial in regard to the same misconduct is pending. Neither the Tribunal nor the High Court did take into consideration the seriousness of the charge which pertains to acceptance of illegal gratification and the desirability of continuing the respondent in service in spite of such serious charges levelled against him. This Court in the said case of State of Rajasthan [(1996) 6 SCC 417 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1455] has further observed that the approach and the objective in the criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings is altogether distinct and different. It held that in the disciplinary proceedings the question is whether the respondent is guilty of such conduct as would merit his removal from service or a lesser punishment, as the case may be, whereas in the criminal proceedings the question is whether the offences registered against him are established and, if established, what sentence should be imposed upon him. The Court in the above case further noted that the standard of proof, the mode of enquiry and the rules governing the enquiry and trial in both the cases are distinct and different. On that basis, in the case of State of Rajasthan [(1996) 6 SCC 417 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1455] the facts which seem to be almost similar to the facts of this case, held that the Tribunal fell in error in staying the disciplinary proceedings.
12. We think the above ratio of law laid down by this Court applies aptly to the facts of the present case also. It is also to be noted that in Capt. M. Paul Anthony case [(1999) 3 SCC 679 :
1999 SCC (L&S) 810] this Court has accepted the principle laid down in Rajasthan case [(1996) 6 SCC 417 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1455].
13. As stated above, in the case in hand, both the Tribunal and the High Court proceeded as if a departmental enquiry and a criminal trial could not proceed simultaneously, hence, they stayed the departmental enquiry which by itself, in our opinion, is contrary to the principles laid down in the above cited cases. 14.
We are of the opinion that both the Tribunal and the High Court proceeded on an erroneous legal principle without taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case and Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 28-06-2025 14:36:39 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)
34. In the case of Union of India and others vs Dalbir Singh reported in(2021) 11 SCC 321the Hon'ble court has held as under:-
"24. .... held that the degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, he cannot be convicted by a court of law. In a departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of preponderance of probability. It was held as under: 11. As far as acquittal of the appellant by a criminal court is concerned, in our opinion, the said order does not preclude the Corporation from taking an action if it is otherwise permissible. In our judgment, the law is fairly well settled. Acquittal by a criminal court would not debar an employer from exercising power in accordance with the Rules and Regulations in force. The two proceedings, criminal and departmental, are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on the offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with the service rules. In a criminal trial, incriminating statement made by the accused in certain circumstances or before certain officers is totally inadmissible in evidence. Such strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental proceedings. The degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency. The rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 28-06-2025 14:36:39 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 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 28-06-2025 14:36:39 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)
35. 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.
36. In the present case, this Court has already reached to the conclusion on facts by considering the charge sheet in the departmental enquiry and criminal challan, that no prejudice is going to be caused to the petitioner by examining witnesses Surendra Rohilla and Ajay Kumar Rai in departmental proceedings prior to they being examined in a criminal case. From such facts already considered in detail above in this order, it is evident that in the present case scope of departmental enquiry and criminal trial is so different that the petitioner cannot demand quashment of departmental charge sheet on the ground of pendency of criminal case. The employer enquiring into discovery of almost Rs. 4.00 crores cash from residence and office of its employee is not a gravely complicated question of law and fact because the employee is only Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 28-06-2025 14:36:39 required to explain the source of funds, though the utilization of small portion of such funds to pay bribe is the main question in the criminal case.
37. In the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sarvesh Berry reported in(2005) 10 SCC 471 it has been categorically held by the 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.
38. This Court has already arrived at a conclusion, as already noted above, that the present case is not a fit case where either the charge sheet may be quashed on ground of pendency of criminal case or even postponement of deposition of witnesses Surendra Rohilla and Ajay Kumar Rai prior to they being examined in criminal trial.
39. Consequently, the petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. However, it is observed that nothing contained in this order shall prejudice the petitioner in raising all defences available to him either in departmental enquiry or in the criminal trial.
(VIVEK JAIN) JUDGE Rj/nkj Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 28-06-2025 14:36:39