Disciplinary Proceedings Can Be Held Pending Criminal Trial Unless Accused Is Prejudiced: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court has reiterated that criminal prosecution and disciplinary proceedings can go on simultaneously against a delinquent employee and there is no need to keep the disciplinary actions in standby until the conclusion of the criminal trial.

While ingeminating the position of law, the Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Savitri Ratho held, “It is, expedient that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible and the authority needs not to await the outcome of the decision of the investigating/prosecuting agency or Court trial.”

It added,

"There are no inflexible rules, in which the departmental proceedings may be stayed pending trial in criminal case against the Delinquent Officer, but, mainly what is required to be seen is whether the departmental enquiry would definitely prejudice the defence of the delinquent employee at a time in a criminal case, if the charge in the criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law. If it is so, the stay of the disciplinary proceedings may be a possible course."

The petitioner was working as Executive Engineer (Civil), Postal Civil Division, Patna and was holding additional charge of Executive Engineer (Civil), Postal Civil Division, Bhubaneswar during the period from 02.06.2022 to 14.04.2023. While working as such, he issued a work order to one Prasanna Manika for repair and maintenance of postal staff Quarters in Rourkela.

The article of charge further reflected that he entered into conspiracy with one Suvasish Pal, Assistant Engineer (Civil), Postal Civil Sub-Division, Sambalpur and withheld an amount payable to Prasanna Manika, Contractor from 1st and 2nd RA Bill to obtain undue monetary advantage from him.

Thus, it was alleged that he committed gross misconduct and acted in a manner unbecoming of Government servant and misused his official position, thereby violating Rule 3(1)(i), (ii), (iii) and (xv) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

The article of charge was supplied to the petitioner along with a statement of imputation of misconduct and misbehaviour in support of article of charge and a list of documents as well as a list of witnesses. He was directed to submit a written statement in his defence. Accordingly, he submitted a representation before the relevant authority.

In the said representation, he indicated that a criminal case under Sections 7 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-B of the IPC is pending for trial before the Special Judge (C.B.I), Bhubaneswar. Since the article of charge of the disciplinary proceeding and the criminal case are based on identical set of facts and the witnesses in both the cases are same, he submitted that in case he files the written statement of defence, his defence would be exposed and he will be highly prejudiced in the criminal case.

Therefore, a prayer was made by the petitioner to keep the departmental proceeding in abeyance till the conclusion of the criminal trial. Subsequently, he carried the matter to the Central Administrative Tribunal claiming the same relief. The tribunal held that the scope, ambit and consequences in fact and law are distinct in both the proceedings and accordingly, the interim relief seeking a stay on the disciplinary proceedings was rejected.

Court's Observations

The only legal question which arose for consideration was whether the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner should be kept in abeyance till the conclusion of the criminal trial, since he claimed that his statement of defence in the disciplinary proceedings can potentially put him in peril in the criminal trial.

To answer the aforesaid question, the Court relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Miner Ltd. & Anr. (1999) and Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs & Ors. v. Tahir Ali Khan Tyagi (2002) wherein it is commonly held that departmental proceeding and criminal proceeding can run simultaneously as the standards of proof in the both the proceedings are different, the former being one of preponderance of probability, whereas the latter being one of proof beyond all reasonable doubts.

Reliance was further placed on the observations made by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in R. Subba Rao v. Chief Vigilance Officer, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 121 which held that it is always in the interest of the employee and the employer both that the departmental proceedings be brought to an expeditious conclusion at an early date in as much as if the employee is not guilty, his honour should be vindicated at the earliest possible and if he is guilty he should be dealt with properly according to law.

Having regard for the above precedents, the Court held –

“Thus, it is well settled in law that the disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings can continue simultaneously and pendency of the criminal proceedings is no legal bar in conducting the departmental proceedings, unless there is a statutory provision barring the continuation of the disciplinary proceedings in such circumstances.”

It was further held that even when the charge is found to be serious, involving complicated questions of fact and law as also the likelihood of the prejudice to be caused to the delinquent in criminal proceedings, the Court has to draw a balance between the need for a fair trial to the accused/delinquent on the one hand and an expeditious conclusion of the on-going disciplinary proceedings on the other.

Consequently, the Court found no fault with the order of the Administrative Tribunal and accordingly, upheld the same by observing –

“In view of the settled position of law and particularly when the scope of the two proceedings are different in nature, staling the Departmental Proceeding till the conclusion of the criminal trial would not be proper and justified particularly when their scope, ambit and consequences in the fact and law are distinct and different.”

Case Title: Deepak Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

Case No: W.P.(C) No. 7349 of 2025

Date of Judgment: March 19, 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Parsuram Mohapatra, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondent/Union: Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along with Ms. Sulochana Patra, CGC

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 57

Click Here To Read/Download Order