Pendency of criminal trial is no bar to simultaneous departmental proceedings involving judicial integrity.

The petitioner, a judicial officer (V Civil Judge, Senior Division, Indore), challenged a charge-sheet dated 19.12.2025 issued under Rule 14 of the M.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1966

The disciplinary action stemmed from allegations that the petitioner prepared a forged judgment of acquittal in State v. Santosh Verma (2020) while the trial was still pending, allegedly to assist the accused in obtaining an IAS award

The petitioner was placed under suspension following a vigilance scrutiny

He moved the High Court seeking quashment of the proceedings on grounds of gross delay and the simultaneous pendency of a criminal trial based on the same facts

The Court applied Rule 14 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966

It relied on Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., which established that while simultaneous proceedings are permissible, departmental actions may be stayed only in "grave" cases involving complex questions of law and fact

The Court further applied the principle from Dinesh Awasthi v. State of M.P., holding that delay does not invalidate proceedings unless "actual prejudice" is established

Finally, it followed Mohinder Singh Kanwar v. State of M.P. and Shailendra Pasari v. Coal India Ltd., which mandate that Courts should not stifle disciplinary actions at the threshold unless there is a total lack of jurisdiction

The Court reasoned that interference at the charge-sheet stage is only permissible in exceptional cases of patent arbitrariness or lack of jurisdiction, neither of which were present here

Regarding delay, the Court noted the gravity of the charges—forgery of a judicial record—required extensive vigilance scrutiny, and the petitioner failed to demonstrate any specific prejudice caused by the 5-year gap

Addressing the criminal trial, the Court held that the standard of proof in departmental inquiries (preponderance of probability) differs from criminal trials (beyond reasonable doubt), and public confidence in judicial integrity necessitates a swift internal inquiry

The Court clarified that Capt. M. Paul Anthony does not mandate an "inflexible rule" to stay proceedings; administrative authorities remain entitled to proceed if the institutional interest warrants it

It held that the charge-sheet was not vague and the disciplinary authority has the jurisdiction to investigate allegations of judicial misconduct despite pending criminal cases

The Court granted the disciplinary authority liberty to proceed with the inquiry in accordance with the law, while clarifying that its observations should not influence the final merit-based decision of the Inquiry Officer