The proceedings of a departmental inquiry should be stayed if charges in a simultaneous criminal case are based on similar facts and involve complex legal questions.

ORDER (ORAL)

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjit More, Chairman Heard Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the applicantt and Mr. Hanu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The applicant by way of the present OA is challenging the charge Memorandum dated 20.05.2024 (Annexure A-1) as well as the order dated 10.09.2024 appointing an Inquiry Officer (Annexure A-2). Mr. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that basically the applicant wants a stay to the departmental proceeding initiated against him by the impugned charge Memorandum on the ground that criminal proceeding is simultaneously going on against the applicant.

3. FIR No. 165/2022 dated 01.10.2022 was filed against the applicant under Sections 376D/228-A/506/120B and after completing the investigation a chargesheet has also been filed in the competent Sessions Court. He further submits that a trial has already started and at present prosecuting applicant is in a witness box. Mr. Bhardwaj also submits that approximately 130 witnesses are cited and as many as 92 documents are included in the chargesheet. He submits that a complicated question of facts is involved and relying upon decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another in Civil Appeal No. 1906 of 1999 decided on 30^th March, 1999, he submits that since complicated facts are involved, departmental inquiry requires to be stayed.

3. Mr. Hanu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the respondents, vehemently opposes the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and states that complicated facts and laws are not involved in the matter and the defence of the applicant is already disclosed and once cross examination of the victim is over, department should be allowed to proceed with departmental proceedings.

4. Having heard the rival submissions and having gone through the pleadings we find that in the impugned charge Memorandum, the respondents are relying upon six documents and nine witnesses. All the documents and witnesses are also included in the chargesheet filed in the Criminal Sessions Court. As on today applicant’s defence is not disclosed and if the respondents are allowed to proceed with the departmental proceedings, the applicant would be forced to disclose his defence.

5. That apart, in another OA bearing OA No. 225/2024 concerning the applicant, the respondents shall file an affidavit in reply in which it is stated that allegation against the applicant were of moral turpitude and FIR had been registered against him for heinous crime. It is also the stand of the respondents that vehicles used in commission of crime were forensically examined and samples were obtained. CDR and other mobile records of the applicant has also been analysed. The SIT examined CCTV clips and statement of driver, cook etc.

5. The law regarding stay to departmental enquiry on the ground that simultaneous criminal proceedings are going on is settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court decision in Capt. M. Paul Anthony Case (Supra). The Hon’ble Apex Court in para 22(ii) made the following observation in the said judgment:

“22. (ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case.”

6. From the above discussion we find that the departmental proceedings and criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts. We also find that criminal charge against th