Simultaneous criminal and departmental proceedings are permissible unless they involve identical charges that could prejudice the defense, emphasizing the principles of natural justice.

Headnote:(A) A.T. Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 7 - Disciplinary proceedings - Applicant challenges disciplinary proceedings initiated during ongoing criminal trial, asserting violation of natural justice and prejudgment of guilt - Court emphasizes that simultaneous proceedings are permissible unless they prejudice the defense - Departmental inquiry stayed pending examination of common witnesses in criminal trial. (Paras 1, 22, 23)

(B) Natural Justice - Principles - Conducting disciplinary proceedings while criminal proceedings are ongoing may violate principles of natural justice if they rely on the same evidence and witnesses. (Paras 22, 23)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, a government employee, was implicated in a corruption case and subsequently faced disciplinary proceedings based on the same allegations while the criminal case was pending. He argued that proceeding with the inquiry would prejudice his defense. (Paras 2, 3, 8)

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found merit in the applicant's claims, stating that the disciplinary proceedings should be stayed until the criminal trial's common witnesses are examined. (Paras 22, 23)

Issues: Whether disciplinary proceedings can continue while a criminal trial based on the same allegations is pending, and if such proceedings would prejudice the applicant's defense. (Paras 19, 20)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that simultaneous criminal and departmental proceedings are permissible unless they involve identical charges that could prejudice the defense, reaffirming the need to uphold principles of natural justice. (Paras 20, 22)

Result: The Original Application is allowed; disciplinary proceedings are stayed until the common witnesses in the criminal trial are examined.

ORDER

Per: SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J):

1. This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the A.T. Act, 1985 against disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant in pursuance of the charge sheet issued vide Memorandum No. GEN/VIG/Misc/611/2021-Vig-O/o Commr-Cus-Prev- Amritsar dated 31.07.2024 (Annexure A-1) including order dated 13.09.2024 (Annexure A-2) issued by Respondent No.2 appointing Respondent No.3 as Inquiring Authority to inquire into the charges framed against the applicant vide Memorandum No. GEN/VIG/Misc/611/2021-Vig-O/o Commr-Cus-Prev- Amritsar dated 31.07.2024, for the simple reason that on the same issue proceedings arising out of case No. RC0052021A0022 dated 08.09.2021 registered at CBI ACB, Chandigarh U/S 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018)and Section 120-B IPC r/w 7 of PC Act 1988 are pending in the court of Ld. Special Judge, CBI, Punjab at Mohali and quashing thereof.

2. The factual matrix of the case at hand is that the applicant initially joined the respondent department of Customs & Central Excise on 18.02.1993 as a Stenographer Grade-III after being recommended by the Staff Selection Commission, New Delhi. He was subsequently promoted to the grade of Inspector, Customs & Central Excise, Chandigarh, on 18.12.2002, and further promoted to the grade of Superintendent, Customs & Central Excise, Chandigarh, on 14.12.2014. Later, he was transferred to the Customs Commissionerate, Ludhiana, where he joined on 11.05.2018 and remained posted there until 25.06.2021. He was then transferred to the Customs Preventive Commissionerate, Amritsar, where he joined on 06.07.2021. Throughout his service, his work and conduct remained exemplary, with no chargesheets or memos issued against him, and his ACRs/APARs were always up to the mark.

3. However, the applicant was falsely implicated in a case by the CBI while serving at the Customs Preventive Commissionerate, Amritsar, based on a false complaint dated 27.08.2021 made by Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma. Consequently, FIR No. RC0052021A0022 was registered at CBI, ACB, Chandigarh, on 08.09.2021. The applicant was arrested on the same day and placed under suspension. He remained in judicial custody for 44 days, from 08.09.2021 to 21.10.2021, before being released on bail. The criminal proceedings against him are ongoing, with a chargesheet filed in the court of the Special Judge, CBI, Punjab, at Mohali, on 24.12.2021. The chargesheet lists 33 witnesses, of whom only three have been examined so far.

4. Following his release, the applicant’s suspension was revoked, and he was posted at the Central Goods and Service Tax Division, Dharamshala, under the jurisdiction of the Central Goods and Service Tax Commissionerate, Shimla, where he joined on 25.06.2024. He remained under suspension from 08.09.2021 to 24.06.2024. Despite the ongoing criminal proceedings, the Respondent No.2 issued a chargesheet to the applicant vide Memorandum No. GEN/VIG/Misc/611/2021-Vig-O/o Commr-Cus-Prev- Amritsar dated 31.07.2024 on the same charges, listing seven witnesses, six of whom are common to the criminal case. The departmental chargesheet relies on the same documents and witnesses, indicating that the disciplinary authority has prejudged the applicant’s guilt even before conducting an inquiry.

5. The applicant submitted a representation dated 09.08.2024, requesting an extension of time to review the documents supplied along with the charge sheet and urging the disciplinary authority to keep the departmental proceedings in abeyance until the criminal trial is completed, as only three out of 34 witnesses had been examined in court. However, no response was received, leading the applicant to submit another representation on 30.08.2024, denying the charges and requesting a personal hearing, but again, there was no response from the respondents.

6. To the applicant’s surprise, without considering his representation or the fact that the criminal and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1947

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALSh. Ramesh Singh Thakur, J, Mrs. Anjali Bhawra, ACJDharamvir – AppellantVersusCgst – RespondentO.A./1395/2024

Simultaneous criminal and departmental proceedings are permissible unless they involve identical charges that could prejudice the defense, emphasizing the principles of natural justice.

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Sh. Ramesh Singh Thakur, J, Mrs. Anjali Bhawra, ACJ
Dharamvir – Appellant
Versus
Cgst – Respondent
O.A./1395/2024