Departmental and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously without a stay unless there are complex legal questions or substantial prejudice demonstrated.

ASHISH SHROTI, J.

1. The petitioner has invoked Article 226 of Constitution of India by filing this petition praying for a direction to the respondents to keep the departmental enquiry in abeyance till the outcome of criminal case. He has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to allow him to work on his post as earlier to initiation of departmental proceedings.

2. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the petitioner was working as Constable in D Company, 26 th Battalion, S.A.F. at Guna. A meeting was scheduled on 20.02.2025 to discuss the issue of management of the mess. The petitioner alongwith another Constable Surendra Singh Ahirwar remained absent in meeting. Their absence was recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha. On the next day i.e. on 21.02.2025, an information was received from the office of Superintendent of Police, Guna that the petitioner and Surendra Singh Ahirwar have been arrested on 20.02.2025 in connection with offence punishable under Section 8 /20, 39 of NDPS Act and a criminal case has been registered against them. The petitioner was produced before Special Court (NDPS) and was initially send on Police remand upto 24.02.2025. Thereafter, he was sent in judicial custody. The investigation in the matter is going on. The FIR registered against the petitioner on 20.02.2025 has been placed on record as Annexure P/2.

3. On receiving the information from S.P. Office, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 21.02.2025 itself. A charge sheet is issued to the petitioner on 28.03.2025 (Annexure P/1). Later on, the petitioner’s suspension has been revoked vide order, dated 17.04.2025.

4. The petitioner is thus facing departmental enquiry pursuant to charge sheet dated 28.03.2025 and a criminal investigation pursuant to FIR, dated 20.02.2025. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the aforesaid proceedings are in relation to one and the same incident. He submitted that both the proceedings are based upon similar charges and charges are required to be proved by same witnesses. He also submitted that in departmental enquiry, the petitioner is required to disclose his defense and that is allowed, he would suffer serious prejudice in the criminal case. He also submitted that complex questions of facts and law are involved in the matter and, therefore, the departmental enquiry should be kept in abeyance till decision in criminal case. In support of his submission, he placed reliance upon judgment rendered by coordinate bench of this court in the case of Harish Chandra Hinunia vs. Food Corporation of India & ors. in W.P. No.453 of 2022.

5. The learned counsel for respondents on advance notice, opposes the prayer made by petitioner’s counsel. He submitted that the allegations made against the petitioner in the charge sheet are entirely different than the one being investigated in the criminal case. He also submitted that there is no absolute bar in continuing departmental proceedings simultaneously with the criminal case. It is his submission that the criminal case is still under investigation and the ultimately conclusion will take sufficiently long time and, therefore, the departmental enquiry cannot be kept in abeyance for indefinite period. The learned counsel also submitted that looking to the charges leveled against the petitioner in the charge sheet, no prejudice is going to be caused to the petitioner if the enquiry is continued simultaneously with criminal investigation/trial. He, thus, prayed for dismissal of this petition.

6. Considered the arguments on admission.

7. As per the FIR, dated