Simultaneous departmental and criminal proceedings are permitted; however, the former should typically be stayed if both are based on identical facts to avoid prejudice to the accused's defense.

ORDER :

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 28.01.2025 whereby interim relief sought for by petitioner has been declined.

2. Petitioner is a Technical Assistant in respondent No.2 organization. On a complaint made by another employee of the same organization, an FIR has been registered against petitioner under Sections 376 (2)(n), 345, 506, 294 of IPC on 30.04.2024. On 21.08.2024, on identical set of facts, a charge memorandum was issued to the petitioner and subsequently, an enquiry under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 has been initiated against petitioner and an Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed. Petitioner has filed the subject Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) seeking quashing of the charge memorandum dated 21.08.2024 and all proceedings emanating therefrom on the ground that charges in the charge memorandum are identical to the allegations in the FIR lodged against the petitioner.

3. The Tribunal by its order dated 05.12.2024 declined to grant interim stay and thereafter list the matter on 17.01.2025 for consideration of the prayer for interim relief. It is at this stage that petitioner approached this Court. Thereafter by order dated 28.01.2025, the prayer for interim relief has been declined and consequently, petitioner amended the petition to incorporate a challenge to order dated 28.01.2025.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in case the departmental proceedings are not stayed, petitioner is going to be prejudice inasmuch as imputation of charge is on identical facts as are alleged by the prosecutrix in the complaint made to the police, based on which subject FIR has been registered. He submits that as on date, charge sheet has not even been filed in the FIR and in case the departmental proceedings continue, grave prejudice is likely to be caused to the petitioner, inasmuch as petitioner would be required to disclose his defence when the prosecutrix steps into the witness box in the departmental Proceedings.

5. Learned Senior counsel for respondents submits that there is no bar on the departmental proceedings continuing simultaneously with the criminal proceedings. Learned Senior Counsel relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & another, (1999) 3 SCC 679 .

6. The Tribunal by impugned order dated 28.01.2025 has rejected the application holding as under:-

"On 05.12.2024, while issuing notices to the respondents, this Tribunal had directed the respondents to file their short reply to the prayer of interim relief, which was to be considered on the next date. However, the applicant immediately rushed to the Hon'ble High Court by filing WP No.39154 of 2024 in which notices have been issued by the Hon'ble High Court on 06.12.2024 and the matter is sub judice before the Hon'ble High Court. There was no hurry for the applicant's counsel to go to the Hon'ble High Court when the date for the interim relief was fixed by this Tribunal for consideration.

After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any good ground to stay the departmental proceedings at this stage. We, however, direct that the respondents may proceed further with the departmental proceedings but shall not pass the final order without l eave of this Tribunal."

7. The Tribunal had fixed the matter on a short date and the petitioner had immediately rushed to the High Court. The Tribunal has recorded that there was no hurry for the applicant's