Departmental enquiries can proceed simultaneously with criminal trials unless they unduly prejudice the defense, emphasizing the need for prompt disciplinary action.

ORDER :

This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed seeking following relief(s):-

(i) That, the impugned charge sheet dated 01.04.2021 contained in Annexure - P/1 issued by the Respondent No. 3 is patently illegal and without jurisdiction, may kindly be quashed declaring the same as void ab-initio, in the interest of justice.

(ii) That, the respondents be further directed not to proceed with the departmental enquiry in view of charge sheet Annexure - P/1, which is contrary to the service jeopardize and contrary to the provisions of Article 20(2) of Constitution of India, and the same is amounting to double jeopardize.

(iii) Cost of the petition be awarded or any other order or direction deemed fit in the circumstances of the case be issued in the favour of the petitioner.

2. The solitary contention of counsel for the petitioner is that on the similar allegations, the petitioner is facing criminal trial and therefore departmental enquiry should not be allowed to continue.

3. This Court, by interim order dated 26.07.2021, had directed that "Till the next date of hearing, respondents are permitted to proceed with departmental enquiry but they are restrained to pass any final order". This interim order is still in force and more than three and a half years have passed.

4. Counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that only charges have been framed in the trial. Thus, it is clear that there is no substantial progress in the trial and the petitioner is enjoying the stay on the departmental enquiry.

5. Now, the only question for consideration is that whether the criminal case as well as the departmental enquiry can go on simultaneously on similar charges or not and even if the departmental enquiry is stayed then whether the same can be stayed for an indefinite period or not?

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 v. M.G. Vittal Rao [(2012) 1 SCC 442: (2012) 1 SCC (L&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 he 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.”

7. The Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India and Others Vs. Neelam Nag and another reported in (2016) 9 SCC 491 has held as under:-

“13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. The only question that arises for consideration is no more res integra. It is well settled that there is no legal bar to the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings and criminal trial simultaneously. However, no straitjacket formula can be spelt out and the Court has to keep in mind the broad approach to be adopted in such matters on case -to-case basis. The contour of the approach to be adopted by the Court has been delineated in a series of decisions.”

8. The Supreme Court in the case of Shashi Bhushan Prasad vs. CISF, reported in