Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J. Rajesh Shankar, J.
Sanjay Nishad, aged about 46 years, Son of Late Harimullah - Appellant
Versus
Bharat Coking Coal Limited – Respondent
L.P.A. No. 462 of 2025, L.P.A. No. 463 of 2025 With L.P.A. No. 467 of 2025
Decided On : 09-09-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the maintainability of simultaneous criminal trial and departmental inquiry. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. detailed factual history regarding bribery charges against appellants. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48) |
| 3. legal standards for staying departmental proceedings during pending criminal trials. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57) |
| 4. application of principles to integrity-based corruption charges in public service. (Para 58 , 59 , 60) |
| 5. dismissal of appeals regarding the stay of departmental proceedings. (Para 61 , 62) |
JUDGMENT :
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.
1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the materials available on record.
2. The moot question in all these appeals, which arises out of a common judgment rendered by the writ Court is whether the criminal case and the departmental proceedings against the petitioner(s)- appellant(s) can be permitted to continue simultaneously. The learned writ Court held that preventing the respondents from passing final orders in the departmental proceedings in the backdrop of delay in finalizing of the criminal case could not be in the interest of justice and accordingly dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants herein. 3. The facts of each of the case are enumerated in brief as under:-
4. L.P.A. No. 462 of 2025
5. The appellant was appointed as Miner Loader on 18.8.2000 at Dobari Colliery of Bastacolla area.
6. The appellant was thereafter transferred to Ena colliery on the post of Dispatch clerk and has been working in the said post since then.
7. During the service period of the appellant a criminal case was instituted against the appellant vide FIR No. RC Case No.01(A)/2018- D, dated 29.1.18 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, alleging therein that the appellant had demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.5000/- from the Complainant for furnishing details of contribution of Provident Fund etc. to him in respect of his father Rupa Bauri, the then support Mazdoor of Dobari colliery under Bastacolla area of Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad. It is further alleged that the appellant had demanded Rs.3000/- as first installment of bribe of the total number of amount of Rs.5000/- for furnishing the details of the said Provident Fund contribution.
8. The CBI had submitted a charge sheet dated 26.3.18 under sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
9. The appellant had been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 9.5.2018.
10. The appellant was put under suspension vide letter dated 19.4.18 by Project Officer, Dobari colliery.
11. Thereafter the appellant was served with Article of Charges vide memo Ref. No. D/IX/18/87, dated 12.6.2018, wherein the appellant was supplied with the article of charges alleging therein that the appellant while posted as Provident Fund clerk in the office of Project Officer, Dobarı Colliery, Bastacolla committed a grave misconduct as much as demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.2000/- from Mr. Subhash Bauri/Complainant for furnishing the details of Provident fund, pension contribution with additional increment etc., in respect of his father Sri Rupa Bauri, support Mazdoor and on the basis of the said Memorandum, Departmental proceeding was initiated against the appellant.
12. Thereafter the Departmental Proceeding continued against the appellant and the appellant regularly attended the departmental proceeding which is evident from the Minutes of the Departmental Proceeding dated 26.3.18 and 12 6.18. The departmental proceeding is still in way and the appellant is regularly attending the proceeding.
13. That the said departmental proceeding is illegal and devoid of merits.
14. That from perusal of Annexure-1, it will be evident that the prosecution in total has ex
AI
The Tribunal concluded that simultaneous criminal and departmental proceedings can proceed only if they do not prejudice the applicant's defense, deferring the latter pending the conclusion of the fo....
Departmental proceedings can continue alongside criminal trials unless complicated legal questions arise; mere overlap of facts does not warrant a stay.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that when the charges in the criminal case and departmental proceeding are similar, the evidence and witnesses are common, and the departmental pro....
Departmental inquiries and criminal trials may proceed simultaneously without prejudice unless grave issues are involved; the standard of proof differs significantly between the two contexts.
Second disciplinary proceedings for distinct charges do not violate double jeopardy, permitting simultaneous continuation with a criminal trial under specific circumstances.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
