Departmental Proceedings May Continue Concurrent with Criminal Trial but Final Orders Must Be Deferred Pending Completion.

The applicant, a 58-year-old Delhi Police employee, was subjected to a Departmental Enquiry (DE) initiated on 02.05.2025, following a criminal case (FIR No. RCDAI-2024-A-0004) registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

The applicant filed a representation on 15.05.2025 requesting that the DE be kept in abeyance until the conclusion of the criminal trial, which was summarily rejected by the respondents on 22.05.2025

Consequently, the applicant approached the Tribunal seeking to stay the DE until the criminal trial concludes. At the time of the hearing, the criminal trial (CBI 66/2024) was at an advanced stage, with prosecution witnesses examined and defense witnesses currently undergoing examination

1. Whether the Departmental Enquiry against the applicant should be kept in abeyance pending the conclusion of the simultaneous criminal trial arising from the same set of facts

2. Whether the respondents should be restrained from passing a final order in the disciplinary proceedings for a specific duration to await the trial court's judgment

The Tribunal primarily considered Rules 11 and 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment Appeal) Rules, 1980, which govern the conduct of disciplinary proceedings against police officers in the event of a parallel criminal trial

The court further relied on the precedent set by a co-ordinate Bench in O.A. No. 1978/2015 (decided on 27.05.2015), which established the principle that while disciplinary proceedings may continue, the final order can be deferred for a reasonable period if the criminal trial is nearing a conclusion, to avoid prejudice to the delinquent employee

The Tribunal noted that the criminal trial (CBI v/s Vijay Kumar) reached an advanced stage, with the prosecution evidence closed and defense witnesses currently being recorded

Applying the logic from O.A. No. 1978/2015, the Tribunal balanced the administrative necessity of concluding disciplinary actions with the legal protections afforded to the accused under the Delhi Police Rules. It reasoned that the respondents could proceed with the inquiry process but should be restricted from passing the final order for a limited period to see if the trial concludes, thereby ensuring the findings of the trial court could be considered if reached within the stipulated timeframe

No order as to costs was made