Departmental inquiries and criminal trials may proceed simultaneously without prejudice unless grave issues are involved; the standard of proof differs significantly between the two contexts.

ORDER :

VIVEK JAIN, J.

By way of this petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the departmental enquiry and charge-sheet issued by the department because on the same set of allegations a criminal case is also registered against the petitioner.

2. An FIR has been registered against the petitioner under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act on the allegations that the petitioner demanded bribe of Rs. 75,000/- from the complainant and upon negotiation the bribe was reduced to Rs. 50,000/- The petitioner thereafter, got a tip of a trap was being laid against him and therefore, delivery/acceptance of bribe could not take place.

3. In the charge sheet issued by the department, it is alleged against the petitioner who is posted as Head Constable in the M.P. Police, that heentered into telephonic conversation with the complainant and he exhibited an suspicious and unlawful conduct in the matter of said conversation in as much as he made demand of bribe in the telephonic conversation. The allegation is that there was a criminal case between two persons namely Rajneesh Mishra and Chhatar Singh Ahirwar and they reached to a compromise but the petitioner has demanded bribe to close the case. Rajneesh Mishra is a complainant in criminal case but he has not been arrayed as witness in the departmental charge-sheet and the other party in the criminal case i.e. Chatar Singh Ahirwar has been named as witness in the departmental charge-sheet.

4. Though, the complainant of criminal case namely Rajneesh Mishra has not been named as witness in the departmental charge-sheet but the persons involved in the transaction of demand of bribe are involved in the departmental charge-sheet also and one of the document of which the prosecution relies in the departmental charge-sheet is the statement of complainant of criminal case Rajneesh Mishra. Therefore, it is clear that there is some commonality of charges in criminal trial and in the departmental charges. However, the departmental proceedings cannot be indefinitely held up on account of charges being common and such holding up of departmental enquiry indefinitely, more so when the petitioner is a member of disciplined force and who is alleged to have demanded bribe to settle the criminal case of which he was investigating officer, early conclusion of departmental enquiry would be in public interest.

5. The Supreme Court in the case of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited 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 the number of accused arraigned for trial is large as is the case at hand and so are the number of witnesses cited by the prosecution. The court, therefore, has to draw a balance between the need for a fair trial to the accused on the one hand and the competing demand for an expeditious conclusion of the ongoing disciplinary proceedings on the other. An early conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings has itself been seen by this Court to be in the interest of the employees.”

(Emphasis supplied)

6. The Supreme Court in the case of Shashi Bhushan Prasad