Defer departmental examination of common witnesses until their deposition in identical concurrent criminal proceedings.

The applicant, a Senior Secretariat Assistant in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), was charged under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, following a CBI trap regarding an alleged bribe of ₹10,000

While the criminal trial was sub judice, the respondents issued a departmental charge-sheet on 16.03.2023 based on the same facts and witnesses

The applicant requested the Inquiry Officer to defer the examination of common witnesses until they were examined in the criminal court to avoid prejudice to his defense.

This request was rejected via an order dated 15.10.2025

The applicant subsequently challenged both the charge-sheet and the rejection order before the Tribunal

1. Whether the departmental proceedings should be stayed or modified when based on an identical set of facts and witnesses as a pending criminal trial

2. Whether the examination of common witnesses in a departmental inquiry should be deferred until their examination in the criminal court to prevent prejudice to the delinquent employee's defense

The Tribunal primarily relied on the principles established in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., which held that while departmental and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously, they should be stayed if the case involves complicated questions of law and fact and identical evidence

It further applied State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena, which emphasized that staying disciplinary proceedings is not a matter of course and must balance the "interest of administration" with the "prejudice to the employee"

The Tribunal also followed its own coordinate bench precedents in OA No. 261/2024 and OA No. 4009/2023, which devised a procedural compromise regarding common witnesses

The Tribunal observed that the charges and witnesses in both the criminal trial and the departmental inquiry were identical

Following the balancing act required by Paul Anthony and B.K. Meena, the Tribunal reasoned that requiring the applicant to cross-examine witnesses in the departmental inquiry before the criminal trial could compel him to disclose his defense prematurely, causing grave prejudice

However, it also noted that administrative efficiency requires that inquiries are not indefinitely stalled

Consequently, the Tribunal adopted a "middle path" used in similar prior cases: allowing the inquiry to proceed but regulating the sequence of witness examination to ensure that common witnesses depose in the criminal court first

The respondents may proceed with the departmental inquiry

Witnesses who have already deposed in the criminal trial can be examined in the departmental inquiry immediately

For other common witnesses, the applicant must notify the department as soon as they have testified in the criminal trial, after which the department is at liberty to examine them in the inquiry

If the applicant causes undue delay in the criminal proceedings, the respondents may approach the Tribunal to seek a modification of this order to proceed unconditionally