The distinction between criminal and departmental proceedings, and the different objectives and standards of proof in each, is crucial in determining the sustainability of parallel proceedings.

JUDGMENT

1. By way of instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner being aggrieved by Charge Memorandum (Annexure P/1) dtd. 9/11/2022 issued by respondent No.4; whereby, the petitioner was subjected to same allegations which relates to the offence registered by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), thus running two parellel proceedings i.e. criminal and departmental for the same cause of action since contrary to settled principal of law as laid down in the matter of Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr., reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679, are vitiated by patent illegality and unsustainable, therefore, deserve to be set aside.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the basic facts leading to the present controversy are as under:- The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Central Intelligence Officer, Grade-II (General) under the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, vide order dtd. 2/2/1999. The petitioner thereafter was appointed as Deputy Registrar and his services were confirmed w.e.f. 30/4/2013 vide order dtd. 4/9/2013. The petitioner was sent on deputation to Indian Institute of Forest Management (An Autonomous Institute of Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India), Bhopal vide order dtd. 27/1/2017. The deputation period at the aforesaid institute was extended and approval was given by Under Secretary, Government of India, from the period 5/4/2020 to 4/4/2021 vide order dtd. 9/3/2020. On 14/9/2020, the petitioner was relieved from his parent department. Again, the petitioner was sent on deputation to All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS), Bhopal vide order dtd. 20/9/2020 as Deputy Director (Administration). On 25/9/2021, one case was registered against the petitioner by CBI in regard to demand of bribe of Rs.1.00 Lakh under Ss. 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 vide Crime No.08/2021. In consequence of the aforesaid registration of FIR, the petitioner was placed under suspension. After placing the petitioner under suspension, a Charge Memorandum has been issued to him in context of departmental enquiry.

3. Alleging that the charges levelled in the departmental enquiry and the charges framed by the Court are on the same set of allegations and facts and the same set of evidences is required to be adduced in both the cases, running of parallel proceedings would cause great hardship and prejudice to the rights of the petitioner, therefore, in such circumstances, running parallel proceedings i.e. departmental enquiry and judicial proceedings are unsustainable.

4. The institution of disciplinary proceedings by the respondents without waiting for the fate of the judicial proceedings and appointment of one C.P. Singh, Joint Director (Legal) IIT, Kanpur as an Enquiry Officer who is of the same cadre as that to the petitioner, vitiates the whole enquiry. By way of present petition, the appointment of the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer is also questioned on the basis of biasedness apart from challenge to the very departmental proceedings initiated over same set of evidence, statements, witnesses and material available on record on the ground that it greatly prejudices the cause of the petitioner, thus, he prayed for setting aside the departmental proceedings.

5. It has further been averred in the petition that appointment of the Enquiry Officer was objected to, by the petitioner before Disciplinary Authority vide letter dtd. 2/2/2023 but without any conclusion/outcome of the objection regarding appointment of the Enquiry Officer, they were turned down and the matter was proceeded with by the Enquiry Officer. Again, the petitioner had raised objection with regard to appointment of the Enquiry Officer which was also allegedly mechanically turned down and therefore, it was averred that the rejection of the change of Enqiury Officer mechanically shows the biased attitude of the Authority who had proceeded