The main legal point established in the judgment is that departmental proceedings can be conducted simultaneously with criminal trials, except in cases where the defence of the employee in the criminal case may be prejudiced, especially in cases involving complicated questions of fact and law. The judgment emphasizes the need for a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings and the balance between fair trial and expeditious conclusion of ongoing disciplinary proceedings.

ORDER : – This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following relief : –

“(i) That, the departmental enquiry taken on issuing the charge-sheet be kept in abeyance till the criminal trial is concluded. (ii) That, respondents may kindly be directed to take final decision on enquiry after trial is concluded. (iii) That, any other relief which this Hon’ble High Court may deem fit, with cost of the petition.”

2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that on 3-2-2022 a departmental charge-sheet has been issued on the allegations that the petitioner was keeping an evil eye on girls of Class 12th and he also tried to touch them on the pretext of correcting their chunni. Accordingly, it is alleged that the charge levelled against the petitioner amounts to serious misconduct within the definition of Rule 3(1)(2)(3) and Rule 23 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 and is punishable under Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966.

3. This petition has been filed mainly on the ground that a criminal charge-sheet has also been filed against the petitioner and criminal trial is pending in the Sessions Court. Charges levelled against the petitioner in the criminal case as well as in the departmental enquiry are identical, therefore, if the respondents are permitted to proceed with the departmental enquiry, then it may disclose his defence and, therefore, the further proceedings in the departmental enquiry be kept in abeyance till the criminal trial is concluded.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. Before considering the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, this Court think it apposite to consider the law governing field.

6. The Supreme Court in the case of Avinash Sadashiv Bhosale (Dead) Through LRs vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2012) 13 SCC 142 has held as under : –

54. This Court recently reiterated the legal principle that departmental proceedings can be conducted simultaneously to the criminal trial in Karnataka SRTC vs. M.G. Vittal Rao, (2012) 1 SCC 442 = (2012) 1 SCC (L and S) 171. In this case, making reference to almost all the previous precedents, this Court has reiterated the legal position as follows :

54.1. There is no legal bar for both proceedings to go on simultaneously.

54.2. 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 and law.

54.3. Such defence ought not to be permitted to unnecessarily delay the departmental proceedings. The interest of the delinquent officer as well as the employer clearly lies in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.

54.4. 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.

54.5. In our opinion, the principles culled out by this Court would be a complete answer to all the submissions made by Mr. Jain.

The Supreme Court in the case of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd. 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 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 t