Can Departmental Enquiry & Criminal Case Proceed Simultaneously With Identical Charge? Madhya Pradesh High Court Answers

Justice Atul Sreedharan cited two reasons for doing so:

First, the charge against the employee under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act involved complicated questions of fact and law.

Second, both proceedings involved same set of witnesses which may lead to disclosure of the accused's defence in the course of the departmental enquiry, and may hamper fair trial if it comes to the knowledge of the prosecution.

The Court was dealing with a writ petition, wherein the Petitioner was aggrieved by the departmental proceedings against him on identical charges by the CBI in a criminal case registered against him. As per the prosecution story, the Petitioner was apprehended red-handed, taking bribe for clearance of bills of the Complainant.

The Petitioner had taken two grounds in the petition. Firstly, he argued that the allegation of illegal gratification demanded and received from the Complainant, for which he was under trial, was identical to that of Article 1 of the departmental enquiry. Secondly, he contended that the departmental charge-sheet, which was served upon him, was prepared on the basis of a vigilance report whereby those who carried out the vigilance investigation were junior in rank to the Petitioner, which is impermissible in law.

To strengthen his case, the petitioner cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr.

Opposing the contentions put forth by the Petitioner, the Respondent submitted that the witnesses and the charge in the CBI's charge-sheet were not identical to that of Article 1 in the charge-sheet initiating departmental enquiry.

Noting the submissions of the parties, the Court scrutinised the decision of the Apex Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony case, and observed-

The Supreme Court held that departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar. It also held that if the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in criminal case against a delinquent employee is of a grave nature, which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it is desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till conclusion of the criminal case. It also held that the question whether the nature of the charge in a criminal case is grave involving complicated questions of fact and law, will depend upon the nature of the offence, the nature of the case against the employee, based upon evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge-sheet.

The Court noted that the Petitioner was charged U/S 120-B IPC R/W Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Commenting on Section 7 of the Act, which very complex. It held that-

In an offence under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, first of all, the demand for bribe has to be proved. Secondly, the acceptance of the bribe has to be established. Thirdly, the tape recording of the demand has to be proved in the light of section 65-B of the Evidence Act. Fourthly, the seizure of the article from the accused has also to be established and fifthly, it must be established beyond reasonable doubt that the office occupied by the accused was such that under the power of the said office he was in a position to favour the complainant in the discharge of his official function.

The Court further observed that allowing a departmental enquiry to proceed simultaneously with a criminal case involving an identical charge could jeopardise the defence of the accused as there is a chance of his defence being disclosed in the course of the departmental enquiry. If the same comes to the knowledge of the prosecution in the criminal trial, it would gravely prejudice the defence of the accused in the criminal trial.

Considering the legal and factual aspects of the case, the Court held that since Article 1 of the departmental charge-sheet was identical to the charge in the criminal case, the department was prohibited from proceeding with its enquiry, with respect to Article 1. It thereby concluded that-

Under the circumstances, the law laid down in Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra) will squarely apply in the facts and circumstances of this case and, therefore, the department is prohibited from proceedings against the petitioner as far as Article-1 of the departmental charge-sheet is concerned. The department, however, is at liberty to proceed with Article No.2 of the charge- sheet which has no relevance, commonality or intended purpose to allegations in the charge sheet against the petitioner before the court trying the criminal case.

Case Title: Harish Chandra Hinunia v. Food Corporation Of India
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 30

Click Here To Read/Download Order