Disciplinary proceedings stayed pending reasoned disposal of representation seeking deferment due to concurrent criminal trial.

The applicant, a 32-year-old police official, is the subject of departmental proceedings initiated on November 23, 2024

These proceedings are based on the same allegations as a criminal case registered under FIR No. 07/2024 dated November 6, 2024, involving Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

While the departmental inquiry is progressing on a day-to-day basis, the criminal trial is delayed as the police have yet to file a challan, pending a CFSL report

The applicant’s representation to defer the departmental proceedings until the prosecution evidence in the criminal case is concluded was rejected on January 30, 2026

The applicant alleged this rejection was "mechanical" and failed to consider her specific grounds, leading her to file a subsequent representation on March 9, 2026, which remains pending

1. Whether the respondents are required to decide the applicant's pending representation dated March 9, 2026, regarding the deferment of departmental proceedings through a reasoned and speaking order

2. Whether the ongoing departmental proceedings should be stayed pending the disposal of the said representation

The Tribunal applied the principles of natural justice and administrative law requiring authorities to pass "reasoned and speaking orders" when adjudicating representations that affect the rights of employees

It adhered to procedural equity, which suggests that when departmental and criminal proceedings are based on identical facts, the administration must formally and logically consider requests for stay or deferment to prevent potential prejudice to the delinquent official's defense

The Tribunal avoided an immediate determination on the merits of staying the departmental proceedings.

Instead, it focused on the procedural lapse regarding the applicant's pending representation

The Bench noted the applicant's contention that the previous rejection order dated January 30, 2026, was passed without appreciating the pleaded grounds

By observing that a fresh representation dated March 9, 2026, was still pending, the Tribunal determined that the respondents must fulfill their administrative duty to provide a considered response

To ensure the applicant's rights were not rendered academic by the "day-to-day" progress of the inquiry, the Tribunal found it necessary to halt the departmental proceedings until the administration formally decided on the representation

The respondents are ordered to pass a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four weeks

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the respondents shall not proceed with the impugned departmental proceedings until the resulting order is served upon the applicant

No order as to costs was made