[2025:RJ-JD:48354]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21711/2025 Naval Ram Dangi S/o Kesu Lal Dangi, Aged About 40 Years, Village Junawas, PO Khemli, Tehsil Mawali, District Udaipur, Presently Residing At D-171, Babar Magra Samudaiyk Bhawan Ke Pass, Barmer Road, Jaisalmer.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Labour And Industries, Govt. Secretariat, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Commissioner, Department Of Labour And Industries, WQ7H+VF9, Hasanpura B, Shanti Nagar, Civil Lines, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302006.

3. The Divisional Joint Labour Commissioner, WQ7H+VF9, Hasanpura B, Shanti Nagar, Civil Lines, Jaipur, Rajasthan

302006.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akshit Gupta, through V.C.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Order

11/11/2025

1. Heard the present writ petition at the admission stage.

2. The challenge in the present writ petition is with regard to the charge-sheet dated 12.02.2024 and the inquiry report dated 09.06.2025. The present challenge is made only on the ground that the present disciplinary proceedings are proceeded on the allegations which are similar/identical to the allegations in the FIR/

criminal case.

3. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr. reported in AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1416, simultaneous proceedings are not allowed.

Therefore, he filed the present writ petition.

4. The relevant para of the judgment Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra) reads as follows:

“22. The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are:

(i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately.

(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.

(iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge sheet.

(iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the Departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed.

(v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, administration may get rid of him at the earliest.”

5. Having gone through the aforesaid judgment, there is no law that disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings cannot be conducted simultaneously; it all depends upon the factual circumstances. The very object of initiating disciplinary proceedings is that if such proceedings are allowed to continue, the delinquent may be required to disclose his defence in the inquiry, which could have an impact on his defence in the criminal proceedings. Such relief can only be claimed when the inquiry has not yet commenced.

6. In the present case, the petitioner voluntarily participated in the inquiry and has already disclosed his defence in the disciplinary proceedings. After the inquiry report went against him, the present writ petition has been filed