Departmental and criminal proceedings can run concurrently unless the criminal charges are grave and complex, which may warrant a stay of the departmental proceedings.

ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-

(i) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to stay the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner till the final decision in the criminal case mentioned in the challan (Annexure-P-2).

(ii) Any other relief to which the petitioner is entitled to be also granted.

(iii) Cost of the petition granted.

2. The facts unfolded in the present case are that the petitioner who was Chief Manager (Security) in the Administration Department at Northern Coalfields Limited Headquarter, Singrauli in the year 2024 is alleged to have committed gross irregularities in the matter of delivery / giving of illegal gratification / undue advantage and he gave bribe amount of Rs.5 Lakhs to Shri Joy Joseph Damle, Deputy S. P. CBI, ACB, Jabalpur through two intermediaries in order to get settled his case registered with CBI Jabalpur. It is also alleged that the petitioner with dishonest intention entered into a criminal conspiracy with other delinquent employees / officials of NCL and committed the offence and tarnished the image and was detrimental to the interest of the Company. On the basis of the complaint made by the respondents, a case has been registered at Police Station CBI/AC-II, New Delhi for the offence punishable under Sections 7 , 7A and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) and under Sections 61 (2) of the BNS, 2023 on Crime No.RC2172024A0012. The police after completion of investigation have filed challan against the petitioner along with others and now, the petitioner is facing criminal trial.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the charges levelled against the petitioner in the memorandum are the same as those mentioned in the challan filed by the Police. The only difference is that the charges containing in the memorandum have been given the shape of departmental lapses / illegalities. The nature of charges mentioned in the challan as well as in the memorandum of charges is the same. Since, the nature of the charges levelled in the memorandum of charges and mentioned in the challan is the same and most of the witnesses mentioned in the memorandum of charges and those mentioned in the challan are also same, therefore, the departmental proceedings be stayed till the final decision of the criminal case. It is further contended that on the same set of allegations, charge sheet has been issued to the petitioner by the respondents and on the same set of allegations, the petitioner has been subjected to prosecution. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the strength of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. And another (1999) 3 SCC 679 has prayed that the departmental proceedings be stayed till the final decision in the criminal case.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. On perusal of the record, it is seen that the challenge to the disciplinary proceedings has been made basically on the ground of continuation of two parallel proceedings i.e. the criminal and the departmental proceedings running simultaneously.

6. It is well settled that there is no legal bar to the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings and criminal trial simultaneously. However, no straitjacket formula can be spelt out and the Court has to keep in mind the broad approach to be adopted in such matters on case-to-case basis.

7. The Supreme Court in the case of Avinash Sadashiv Bhosale (Dead) Through LRs Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2012)

13 SCC 142 has held as under:-

“54. This Court recently reiterated