Departmental inquiries and criminal trials may occur simultaneously; overlapping charges allow for departmental proceedings to continue based on a preponderance of probabilities, unlike criminal trials requiring beyond reasonable doubt proof.

ORDER :

VIVEK JAIN, J.

Since both these petitions are having identical facts and revolving on identical grounds, therefore they are being decided by this common order.

2. W.P. No. 20625/2023 has been filed by an employee of Food Corporation of India who holds the post of Assistant Grade-I (Technical) while W.P. No. 20626/2023 has been filed by an employee who holds the post of Assistant Grade-III (Technical) in the said Corporation. Both the petitioners have been involved in the same criminal case and part of the same transaction. For the sake of convenience the facts are taken from W.P. No.20625/2023.

3. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners demanded bribe of Rs. 1.05 lac per month from Complainant Om Prakash Chandravanshi and the said demand was made by the petitioners of these two cases. The said demand of bribe was thereafter, reduced to Rs. 50,000/- upon negotiation and part of bribe was received by the petitioner Abhishek Pare. The said bribe was demanded by getting stock of food grains stored for long period in the warehouses which are in the name of family members of the complainant. Abhishek Pare is alleged to have obtained Rs. 10,000/- from the complainant before he approaching the CBI. Both the petitioners were then trapped accepting remaining amount of Rs. 40,000/- on 26.4.2023. They have been chargesheeted in connection with the said criminal case and trial is going on.

4. When the trap was laid, the bribe money was recovered from the accused/petitioners.

5. FIR at crime no. RC0082023A0008 was registered by the CBI, Bhopal on 21.04.2023 and charge sheet was filed before Special Judge (CBI) Bhopal on 29.06.2023. Thereafter the petitioners have been charge-sheeted by the Corporation in July 2023 vide Anenxure P/3 consisting two charges. The ground of the petitioners is that since the charges in the department proceedings and in the criminal trial are same and similar therefore, in terms of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Captain M. Paul Antony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines , 1999 (3) SCC 679 so also in the case of G.M. Tank Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr. reported in (2006) 5 SCC 446 , the charge sheet has to be quashed because there is commonality of the charges and witnesses in the department enquiry in criminal trial. Therefore, either the charge sheet has to be quashed or at least the examination of the common witnesses in departmental enquiry and criminal trial has to be postponed and the common witnesses should not be examined in departmental enquiry till their examination in criminal trial because if the petitioner cross-examines these witnesses in departmental proceedings prior to they being examine in criminal case, then the defence of the petitioner in criminal case would be disclosed and which would jeopardize his case in the criminal proceedings. It is contended that the accused has a right to remain silent in criminal proceedings because the standard is strict proof beyond reasonable doubt whereas in departmental proceedings no such right to remain silent is available because the standard of proof is preponderance of probability and therefore, it is contended that the charge-sheet either be quashed or the examination of the common witnesses be postponed in departmental enquiry.

6. Per contra, it is contended by learned counsel for respondents that the departmental enquiry cannot be indefinitely postponed, more so when the charges are of corruption. Criminal trial would take a long time to be concluded, till that time the department cannot be expected to postpone the departmental enquiry. It is further pointed out that the petitioners have been deliberately delaying the criminal case which is pending since 2023 and looking to the manner in which the petitioners are delaying the criminal trial, the conclusion of criminal trial in near future is not possible and the petitioners have taken undue benefit of interim order passed in this case whereby this Court has stayed the proceedings of th