Departmental proceedings may be deferred where identical evidence risks prejudicing the criminal defence.

The applicant, a Senior Barrack Store Officer, faced departmental proceedings under a charge-sheet dated 25 April 2022 alleging that he paid illegal gratification to obtain a favourable posting.

A related criminal prosecution arose from the same transaction, involving substantially overlapping allegations, evidence, documents and witnesses.

The FIR was registered on 1 June 2017, and the criminal charge-sheet was filed in August 2022; at the time of the Tribunal’s consideration, the criminal trial was at the stage of charge, with 75 prosecution witnesses yet to be examined.

The applicant sought deferment of the departmental inquiry, contending that examining common witnesses in that inquiry first could prejudice his defence in the criminal trial.

The respondents opposed deferment, emphasising the different purposes and standards of proof in the two proceedings.

1. Whether the departmental proceedings should be deferred because they arise from the same transaction and substantially overlap with the pending criminal prosecution.

2. Whether deferment should continue until conclusion of the criminal trial or be limited to a specified period.

There is no legal bar to simultaneous departmental and criminal proceedings. Under Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., (1999) 3 SCC 679, deferment may nevertheless be appropriate where both proceedings rest on identical or substantially similar facts, the criminal charge is grave and involves complicated questions of fact or law, and concurrent proceedings may prejudice the employee’s criminal defence; the question depends on the circumstances of each case, and deferment should not become indefinite.

Kusheshwar Dubey v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., (1988) AIR 2118, similarly recognises that departmental proceedings may be deferred in an appropriate case where both proceedings arise from the same facts, without prescribing a rigid rule.

Ajit Kumar Nag v. General Manager (P.J.), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (2005) 7 SCC 764, recognises that criminal and departmental proceedings have distinct purposes and standards of proof; that distinction does not, by itself, resolve whether concurrent proceedings would cause prejudice in the particular case.

The Tribunal found that the departmental and criminal proceedings arose from the same transaction and that the evidence and witnesses substantially overlapped.

It considered the applicant’s concern—that cross-examining common witnesses in the departmental inquiry before their examination in the criminal trial could expose his defence—to be a real possibility of prejudice, rather than an unfounded apprehension.

Although the criminal trial had been pending for a considerable period and was still at the charge stage, the Tribunal considered that this did not justify requiring the applicant to disclose his defence in the departmental proceedings. Balancing that risk against the need to avoid an indefinite stay, it adopted a time-limited deferment.

It directed that the departmental proceedings pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 25 April 2022 remain deferred until evidence of the material witnesses in the criminal proceedings is recorded or for six months from the date of the order, whichever occurs earlier.

The charge-sheet was not quashed, and the respondents may resume the departmental proceedings after that period, in accordance with law, if the criminal proceedings have not concluded.

The O.A. was disposed of on those terms, with no order as to costs.