Simultaneous proceedings are permissible, and the pendency of a criminal case cannot be a ground to keep the departmental disciplinary proceedings in abeyance. The court emphasized the different standards of proof required in criminal cases and departmental disciplinary proceedings.

ORDER :

The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to forbear the respondents from proceeding any further in the Disciplinary Proceedings vide No.V4/264/2017/Vig dated 25.07.2019 against the petitioner until conclusion of the criminal prosecution vide CC.No.5 of 2019 on the file of XIV Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Madras.

2. The petitioner was working as Senior Deputy Materials Manager in Chennai Port Trust and on account of certain allegations, departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the writ petitioner. He was placed under suspension and a charge memo was issued to him in proceedings dated 25.07.2019.

3. With reference to the departmental disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner filed the present writ petition, to keep the proceedings in abeyance. Till such time, the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner is disposed of.

4. The petitioner states that the simultaneous proceedings are impermissible and he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M.Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Limited and another, reported in 1999 (3) SCC 679.

5. The judgment rendered by the Apex Court in M.Paul Anthony’s case (cited supra) was reviewed subsequently by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and several judgments were passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, holding that simultaneous proceedings are permissible and there is no impediment for the Disciplinary Authority to proceed with the departmental disciplinary proceedings even during the pendency of the criminal case.

6. The procedures to be followed in a Criminal Case and departmental disciplinary proceedings are distinct and different. High standard of proof is required to convict a person under criminal law. However, no such strict proof is required to punish an employee under the Discipline and Appeal Rules. Preponderance of probabilities are enough to punish an employee and therefore, the procedures to be adopted for Criminal Case cannot be compared with the departmental disciplinary proceedings.

7. As far as the simultaneous proceedings are concerned, this Court has already been considered the principles of simultaneous proceedings in W.P.(MD) No.25269 of 2019 dated 25.04.2022 and the relevant paragraphs are extracted here under:

“5. This Court is of the considered opinion that the Hon-ble Supreme Court of India in unequivocal terms held that there is no bar for continuance of departmental disciplinary proceedings during the pendency of the criminal case. In other words, pendency of the criminal case cannot be a ground to keep the departmental disciplinary proceedings in abeyance. Simultaneous proceedings are permissible in all circumstances, if the Authorities are in possession of the materials for the purpose of conducting the departmental disciplinary proceedings. This Court has elaborately considered the principles of simultaneous proceedings in W.P.(MD) No.17378 of 2019 on 21.02.2022 which reads as under:-

(i) It is a settled law that criminal case and the departmental disciplinary proceedings may be initiated simultaneously as the case may be;

(ii) An order of suspension, if required, may be issued in the prescribed format as per the rules;

(iii) If the records and evidences are available with the disciplinary authority, then without any loss of time, charge memorandum shall be issued and the disciplinary proceedings may go on;

(iv) The question to be considered is whether simultaneous proceedings may go on or not?;

(v) The departmental domestic enquiry and the criminal trial shall proceed simultaneously and the decision in the criminal case would not materially affect the outcome of the domestic enquiry;

(vi) The nature of both proceedings and the test applied to reach final conclusion in the matter are entirely different.

(vii) If the case involves complicated questions of fact and law and the disciplinary authority is not in possession of the required materials for the purpose of conducting enq