The court clarified the distinction between criminal trials and departmental inquiries, emphasizing that they serve different objectives and have separate standards of proof.

ORDER

By way of this petition, challenge is made to the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner vide Annexure P-4 on the ground that for the same set of allegations, the petitioner has been subjected to FIR under Sections 7 and 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act and therefore, since the charge-sheet has been issued to him by the Police Department and the evidence of common witnesses is going to take place shortly, therefore the charge-sheet be quashed or at least the deposition of common witnesses be postponed till the said witnesses are examined in criminal trial because if the petitioner is asked to cross-examine the common witnesses then his defence in criminal trial would be prejudiced.

2. It is contended by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the impugned charge sheet is bad in law because on the same set of allegations, the petitioner is also facing a Criminal Prosecution and therefore, the petitioner cannot be vexed twice for the same cause because there is  commonality of charges between the Criminal Case and in the Departmental Enquiry and if the petitioner is asked to participate in the Departmental Enquiry, he would be required to disclose his defence in the Departmental Enquiry before the witnesses are examined in the Criminal Case.

3. It is vehemently argued that in the Criminal Case the accused has a right to remain silent whereas in Departmental Enquiry there is no such right and presumption may be drawn against him if he remains silent and does not put forth his defence. It is argued that since he would be required to cross examine the Departmental witnesses in the Departmental enquiry, his defence to be taken in Criminal trial would be disclosed and the witnesses in the Criminal trial may cover up the defence of the petitioner in their statements in Criminal case and this would be to grave prejudice of the petitioner because upon disclosure of defence in the Criminal case, he stands to be having greater chances of being convicted in the Criminal case. Then not only that would have a bearing on his service career, but it shall also affect the personal liberty of the petitioner. Therefore, it is argued that the charge sheet issued during pendency of the Criminal case is bad in law.

4. It is further argued that in fact the charge sheet could not have been issued because there is commonality of charges in the Criminal case and the Departmental proceedings and the Department ought not to have issued the charge sheet or because if he is ultimately acquitted in Criminal case, then naturally it would have bearing in the Departmental Proceedings and the petitioner cannot be made to face two proceedings for the same cause.

5. Per contra, it is contended by learned counsel for the State that the charges are not similar and therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner either to quash the charge sheet or to seek postponement of cross examination of common witnesses in Departmental Enquiry till such time those witnesses are cross-examined in the criminal trial.

6. Heard.

7. In the present case, first this Court proceeds to examine whether the charges are common or not so that the further grounds of the petitioner may be considered. The basic facts creating dispute in the present case are that the petitioner was Investigating Officer of Crime No.565/2024 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Chhindwara against some private persons.

8. In the FIR registered against the petitioner in the criminal case the allegation against the petitioner is demand of bribe from the accused person Durgesh Soni during investigation of the said crime. In the FIR registered against the petitioner under Prevention of Corruption Act , the allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner first placed that accused person in illegal custody for three days and then demanded an amount of Rs.1.00 Lakh from the accused of criminal case out of