Departmental proceedings should be stayed where identical grave charges risk prejudicing the employee’s criminal defence.

The applicant, an IPS officer under suspension, challenged the decision to proceed with a major-penalty departmental inquiry under Rule 8 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969.

The inquiry arose from the same alleged incident as CID PS Case No. 14/2023, in which the applicant faced criminal charges.

He contended that the charges, evidence, documents and witnesses in both proceedings were identical and that continuing the inquiry would prejudice his defence at trial.

His request to defer the inquiry had been rejected by the State Government.

The respondents maintained that simultaneous departmental and criminal proceedings were permissible and that the proceedings served different purposes

Whether the departmental inquiry should be stayed while the criminal case was pending, where both proceedings arose from the same incident and involved identical or similar charges, evidence and witnesses

Whether continuing the departmental inquiry would cause serious prejudice to the applicant’s defence in the criminal trial

Rule 8 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 provides for major-penalty proceedings

The Tribunal relied on Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., (1999) 3 SCC 679, for the principle that departmental proceedings may be stayed where they and the criminal case rest on identical or similar facts, the criminal charge is grave and involves complicated questions of law and fact, and proceeding with the inquiry may prejudice the employee’s defence

It also referred to G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat, (2006) 5 SCC 446, and Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan, Civil Appeal No. 7935 of 2023, concerning the circumstances in which identical charges, evidence, witnesses and circumstances may make it unjust or oppressive to allow departmental findings to stand

The Tribunal recognised that there is no absolute bar to simultaneous proceedings; the question depends on the circumstances of each case

The Tribunal found that the disciplinary allegations arose from the same incident as the criminal case and that the inquiry’s witness list overlapped with the prosecution witnesses.

It concluded that examining and cross-examining those witnesses in the departmental inquiry could disclose the applicant’s defence and seriously prejudice him at trial.

Given the gravity of the criminal charges and the overlap between the proceedings, the Tribunal considered a stay appropriate, notwithstanding the general permissibility of concurrent proceedings

It left the respondents at liberty to resume the departmental proceedings thereafter.

The OA was disposed of, with no order as to costs; any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of