Departmental Proceedings Need Not Be Stayed Merely Because Criminal Case Is Pending Unless Prejudice Is Shown: J&K&L High Court

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that departmental proceedings cannot be halted merely because a criminal case is pending on the same allegations.

The High Court clarified that a stay is justified only where the criminal case is of a grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law, and where continuation of disciplinary action would prejudice the employee's defence.

The Court was hearing two writ petitions filed by a Border Security Force officer challenging his suspension and departmental enquiry initiated under Rule 173 of the BSF Rules, alongside a related contempt petition.

A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Dhar while dismissing the petitions, observed that “it cannot be stated that the departmental proceedings are required to be kept in abeyance till the decision of the criminal case unless it is shown that criminal case against the petitioner, besides being of a grave nature, involves complicated question of law and fact and that continuance of departmental proceedings against the petitioner would prejudice his defence”.

The matter arose after the petitioner, serving as Assistant Commandant in the BSF, was booked in a criminal case under Section 376 IPC pursuant to a complaint lodged by a woman ASI of the Force. A chargesheet was filed, and the criminal trial is underway before the competent court in New Delhi.

Subsequently, BSF authorities initiated departmental proceedings under Rule 173 of the BSF Rules based on a complaint submitted by the same ASI to the Force. A Staff Court of Enquiry was ordered to inquire into allegations of misconduct.

The petitioner challenged the initiation of departmental proceedings and also questioned the repeated extension of his suspension. He contended that the allegations constituted personal matters, that his defence in the criminal case would be prejudiced if departmental proceedings continued, and that his prolonged suspension was unjustified.

The Court examined the legal framework governing simultaneous criminal and departmental proceedings. Relying on the Supreme Court's rulings 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, the Court reiterated that there is no legal bar to proceeding with both simultaneously.

The Court noted that a stay may be warranted only where the criminal charge is of a grave nature and involves complicated questions of fact and law, and where continuation of departmental proceedings is likely to prejudice the accused employee's defence.

However, the Court held that the allegation that the complainant was induced into sexual relations on a false promise of marriage did not involve complicated questions of law or fact. It further noted that the petitioner had already disclosed his defence in writ petitions, representations, and even in his bail application, thereby ruling out any possibility of prejudice.

The Bench also emphasised the distinct purposes of criminal prosecution and disciplinary action, observing that departmental proceedings are necessary to maintain discipline and efficiency in service and should not be unduly delayed.

On suspension, the Court noted that departmental proceedings were stayed due to an interim order obtained by the petitioner himself. It held that the petitioner could not claim prejudice or delay attributable to his own actions.

Accordingly, the Court concluded that no grounds were made out for staying the departmental proceedings or interfering with the suspension orders. Finding no merit in either of the writ petitions, the High Court dismissed them and vacated all interim directions.

Case Title: Akhand Prakash Shahi v. Union of India & Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL)

Click here to read/download Judgment