Stay Of Disciplinary Inquiry Is Only To Prevent Prejudice, Cannot Be Grounds For Indefinite Delay: J&K High Court

Justice Sanjay Dhar underscored that the sole purpose of staying departmental proceedings is to avoid prejudice to the delinquent employee, as simultaneous progress might compel him to prematurely disclose his defence. The Court emphasised that this limited protection cannot be stretched into a blanket policy of halting inquiries for years, particularly when the nature of the allegations does not involve complicated questions of fact or law.

The Court stated,

“Departmental proceedings should not be unduly delayed. The purpose of staying the departmental proceedings till the criminal proceedings are concluded is to avoid prejudice to the delinquent employee during the criminal proceedings because if the departmental proceedings are proceeded ahead, the delinquent employee would be compelled to disclose his defence, which may cause prejudice to his case before the criminal court.”

These observations arose from two connected writ petitions filed by one Akhad Prakash Shahi, a BSF Assistant Commandant, who simultaneously challenged the order placing him under suspension and the initiation of departmental proceedings under Rule 173 of the BSF Rules, 1969. These proceedings originated from a serious allegation made by a woman ASI of the BSF, who filed a complaint on the basis of which an FIR under Section 376 IPC was registered at Police Station Dwarka (North), New Delhi.

According to the FIR, the complainant had publicly invited matrimonial proposals from BSF personnel in October 2020, following which the petitioner contacted her and expressed his intent to marry her. She alleged that the petitioner met her at various hotels in New Delhi between December 2020 and March 2021 and repeatedly had sexual relations with her on the strength of an unqualified assurance that he would solemnize the marriage. However, he subsequently got engaged to a different woman, resulting in an FIR.

During the trial, the BSF, upon receiving the complainant's written complaint, which mirrored the allegations set out in the FIR, initiated a Staff Court of Inquiry under Rule 173 to examine charges of rape, threat, and blackmail, all treated as misconduct involving a junior member of the Force.

The petitioner challenged these proceedings as well as the repeated extensions of his suspension, arguing that the allegations were personal, stemmed from a private dispute, and had nothing to do with his service. He further contended that departmental proceedings could not continue while a criminal case was pending, and proceeding with both would seriously prejudice his defence.

Justice Dhar rejected these arguments after examining the material on record and the settled legal position. The Court noted that although the criminal case and departmental proceedings stemmed from the same factual matrix, this did not automatically require a stay of the disciplinary inquiry. The Court recalled the authoritative pronouncements in State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena, Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., and Depot Manager, APSRTC v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya, observing that the Supreme Court has consistently maintained that there is no legal bar to the simultaneous continuance of criminal and departmental proceedings.

Justice Dhar, underscored that a stay may only be justified where the criminal charge is grave and involves intricate questions of law and fact, and where there is a real likelihood of prejudice to the defence. This, the Court held, was not the situation in the present case. The allegations against the petitioner inducing sexual relations on false promise of marriage did not call for any complex adjudication either before the criminal court or within the departmental framework.

The Court observed that the petitioner had already disclosed his defence on multiple occasions ie in his writ petitions, in his representations before BSF authorities, and even in his bail application before the criminal court. In such circumstances, the plea of prejudice was “wholly illusory”, the court maintained.

Justice Dhar also rejected the petitioner's argument that the alleged conduct was personal and unrelated to service. The Court held that the complainant herself was a BSF personnel, and allegations of rape or exploitation made by a junior official against a senior officer necessarily had service related and disciplinary ramifications. The Court held that the consequences of the alleged act thus had “contours of criminality as well as contours of misconduct”, firmly bringing the matter within the jurisdiction of the Force to hold an internal inquiry.

On the issue of prolonged suspension, the Court found that the delay in the departmental proceedings was entirely attributable to the petitioner, who had secured an interim stay on the inquiry from the High Court barely six weeks after it was initiated. The Court noted that it was therefore impermissible for the petitioner to claim that the authorities had subjected him to undue agony by not completing the proceedings. A person cannot take advantage of his own obstruction, the Court held.

Justice Dhar explained that while criminal prosecution aims at punishing an offence against society, departmental proceedings ensure discipline and efficiency in public service. These two processes, the Court emphasised, are distinct in purpose, standard of proof, and procedural requirements. While a criminal court requires proof beyond reasonable doubt under the Indian Evidence Act, departmental proceedings operate within a different evidentiary framework and a lower standard of proof. The pendency of a criminal trial, which can take years, cannot hold hostage the need for administrative discipline, he stated.

In light of these findings, the Court held that there was no legal foundation for the petitioner's plea to halt the departmental proceedings and no infirmity in the decision to continue his suspension. The Court accordingly dismissed both writ petitions, vacated all interim orders.

Case Title: AKHAND PRAKASH SHAHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA & A

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment