Criminal and disciplinary proceedings may proceed simultaneously because they apply different standards of proof.

The petitioner, a practising chartered accountant, was named as an accused in a CBI prosecution concerning alleged irregularities in credit facilities granted to a borrower.

He denied preparing or issuing the disputed financial statements and audit documents, alleging that his signatures and professional stamp had been forged or misused.

The criminal case was pending before the Sessions Court at Indore.

Following communications from the CBI, the ICAI initiated disciplinary proceedings under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, and formed a prima facie opinion against the petitioner after considering his reply.

The petitioner sought to quash the prima facie opinion and disciplinary proceedings, or alternatively to keep them in abeyance until conclusion of the criminal trial.

Whether disciplinary proceedings may continue concurrently with a criminal prosecution arising from the same subject matter.

Whether the disciplinary proceedings should be stayed because their continuation would prejudice the petitioner’s defence in the criminal case.

Criminal and disciplinary proceedings may ordinarily proceed simultaneously because they serve different purposes and apply different standards of proof: criminal guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, whereas disciplinary misconduct may be established on a preponderance of probabilities.

Relying principally on Union of India v. Dalbir Singh, (2021) 11 SCC 321, and SBI v. Neelam Nag, (2016) 9 SCC 491, the Court stated that a stay may be warranted where the criminal charge is grave, involves complicated questions of fact or law, and continuation of the disciplinary inquiry would seriously prejudice the accused’s defence; the question is fact-specific, and no inflexible rule governs it.

The petitioner had also relied on Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., (1993) 3 SCC 679, Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd. v. Girish V., (2014) 3 SCC 636, and Kusheshwar Dubey v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., (1988) 4 SCC 319.

The Court treated the distinct purposes and standards of proof in the two proceedings as permitting concurrent continuation, while recognising that a stay could be appropriate if the disciplinary inquiry would seriously prejudice the criminal defence.

It found that the petitioner had an opportunity to present his defence before both the disciplinary authorities and the criminal court, and that the authorities had considered his reply before forming their prima facie opinion.

On the record before it, the Court did not consider the asserted risk of prejudice sufficient to stay the disciplinary proceedings.

It also observed that the authorities relied upon by the petitioner did not reflect consideration of Dalbir Singh, which the Court regarded as relevant to the issue.

The writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.