Key Points from the Legal Document:

1. There is no absolute legal prohibition against conducting both departmental disciplinary proceedings and criminal cases simultaneously. However, if both proceedings are based on the same set of facts and evidence, and the criminal charge is of a grave nature involving complex legal and factual questions, it is advisable to stay the departmental proceedings until the criminal case is resolved (!) .

2. When proceedings are based on identical facts, the criminal case's outcome can significantly impact the departmental process. If the criminal case results in acquittal or the proceedings are unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings may be invalidated or require reconsideration, especially if the employee has already been acquitted by a court of law (!) (!) .

3. The standard of proof differs between criminal and departmental proceedings. Criminal cases require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas departmental inquiries are based on a preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, an acquittal in a criminal court does not automatically conclude the departmental proceedings, but it raises questions about the fairness and validity of the departmental findings if they are based on the same evidence (!) (!) (!) .

4. If the facts and evidence in both proceedings are identical, and the criminal case has resulted in an acquittal, continuing with departmental proceedings may be unjust and unfair. In such circumstances, it is appropriate to halt or reconsider the departmental process to prevent injustice (!) (!) .

5. The non-payment of subsistence allowance during suspension is a serious violation of natural justice and fundamental rights. It can be likened to slow-poisoning, as it adversely affects the employee’s right to life and dignity. Payment of subsistence allowance is essential to ensure the employee's basic livelihood during suspension (!) (!) (!) (!) .

6. An employee’s basic rights, including fundamental rights such as the right to life, are not surrendered upon employment with the government or other public sector entities. The provision of subsistence allowance during suspension is a safeguard to uphold these rights and ensure humane treatment (!) (!) .

7. Conducting proceedings without providing subsistence allowance, especially when the employee is ill or unable to attend due to financial hardship, violates principles of natural justice and fairness. Such violations can vitiate the entire disciplinary process and lead to the proceedings being set aside (!) (!) .

8. The right to suspend an employee is unconditional and recognized under service rules and statutes. Suspension does not terminate the employment but restricts the employee from working, with the employer obligated to pay subsistence allowance unless rules specify otherwise. Failure to pay this allowance during suspension is considered inhumane and can have legal repercussions (!) (!) (!) (!) .

9. An employee’s fundamental rights, including the right to life and dignity, are protected and cannot be waived or bartered away upon employment. The employment relationship is governed by contractual and statutory rules that uphold these rights, including provisions for humane treatment during disciplinary proceedings (!) .

10. When proceedings are based on the same facts, and the employee has been acquitted in a criminal case, continuing with departmental proceedings or dismissals based on the same evidence is unjust. In such cases, reinstatement and compensation are warranted, especially if the employee has suffered prolonged hardship or injustice due to prior proceedings (!) (!) .

11. The timing and circumstances of proceedings, such as delays or the employee’s illness, are relevant factors in determining whether proceedings should be stayed or resumed. Courts may consider the overall fairness, the impact of delays, and the rights of the employee when deciding on the continuation or stay of disciplinary actions (!) (!) .

12. The decision to proceed with disciplinary actions should be balanced with considerations of natural justice, fairness, and the specific facts of each case, including the gravity of charges and the progress of criminal proceedings. Unjust proceedings or violations of rights can lead to the quashing of disciplinary measures and orders for reinstatement with back wages (!) (!) .

These key points emphasize the importance of fairness, natural justice, and the need to consider the specific circumstances of each case, especially when proceedings are based on the same facts or involve fundamental rights violations.