Disciplinary proceedings may continue where no criminal case has been instituted against the employee.

Kavi joined the Food Corporation of India (“FCI”) as a Watchman in 2019 and was promoted as Assistant Grade-III in 2022.

Following an inquiry into alleged impersonation and forged signatures in the 2017 Watchman recruitment examination, the CBI registered RC09(A)/2024-BBS under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Kavi’s name was not mentioned in the FIR, which referred to certain candidates and unknown FCI officials.

On the basis of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory report stating that the person who wrote the questioned signatures did not write the specimen signatures, FCI initiated disciplinary proceedings against Kavi by memorandum dated 4 August 2025.

The learned Single Judge, by order dated 4 February 2026, permitted the disciplinary proceedings to continue but restrained FCI from passing a final order until disposal of the CBI proceedings.

FCI challenged that order in the intra-Court appeal, principally alleging violation of natural justice because the writ petition had been disposed of without allowing FCI to file a response.

1. Whether the disciplinary proceedings against Kavi ought to be stayed, or their final outcome withheld, merely because a CBI investigation arising from substantially related allegations was pending.

2. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in concluding that the departmental and criminal proceedings were based on “selfsame charges” without examining whether the charges, evidence, witnesses and circumstances were identical.

3. Whether the order passed on the first listing of the writ petition, without granting FCI an opportunity to file a response, violated principles of natural justice.

The Court applied the settled principle that departmental proceedings and criminal prosecution may ordinarily proceed simultaneously because they serve different purposes and apply different standards of proof: preponderance of probabilities in departmental proceedings and proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal trials.

Relying on State Bank of India v. R.B. Sharma, Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena, and Depot Manager, APSRTC v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya, the Court held that a stay may be justified only where the criminal charge is grave, involves complicated questions of fact and law, and the departmental proceedings are based on identical facts and common evidence such that the employee’s criminal defence may be prejudiced; stay is not automatic and must also account for undue delay and administrative interests.

The Court further relied on Union of India v. Arulmozhi Iniarasu for the principle that precedents must be applied in their factual context, and on Ministry of Defence v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha for the rule that a charge-sheet or show-cause notice ordinarily should not be quashed at the threshold.

Principles of natural justice require a fair opportunity to respond before an adverse determination is made.

The Court found that no criminal case or trial was pending against Kavi; the FIR did not name him and the CBI investigation was still in progress.

Therefore, the factual basis necessary to establish that the criminal and departmental proceedings involved identical charges, witnesses and evidence was absent.

The disciplinary memorandum was founded on the CFSL report and contained specific articles of charge, relied-upon documents and a witness list, giving Kavi an opportunity to defend himself in the departmental inquiry.

The authorities relied upon by Kavi principally concerned cases where criminal trials had concluded, or where identical charges and common evidence had been demonstrably established; they did not justify restraining FCI in the present circumstances.

The Court also held that the Single Judge had reached the conclusion of “selfsame charges” abruptly, without adequate material or reasoning and without permitting FCI to respond.

In view of the seriousness of the allegations and the interest of maintaining administrative integrity, postponing the disciplinary proceedings was considered detrimental to good administration.

The order dated 4 February 2026 in W.P.(C) No. 3337 of 2026 was set aside.

FCI was permitted to proceed with and conclude the departmental inquiry in accordance with law, while Kavi was given liberty to participate and submit his written statement of defence.

FCI was directed to adhere to the principles of natural justice before reaching the logical conclusion of the proceedings.

There was no order as to costs, and pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.