No bar on concurrent departmental, criminal proceedings, says Punjab and Haryana High Court

Tribune News Service

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, April 17

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that departmental and criminal proceedings can run concurrently, though separately, without any legal impediment. Justice Vikas Bahl also made it clear that both proceedings served distinct purposes.

Focus on early end to proceedings

• Justice Vikas Bahl emphasised early conclusion of departmental proceedings to not only weed out an employee whose integrity or character had been put to doubt, for maintaining discipline in service and efficiency of public service, but also to vindicate, at the earliest, the honour of those not guilty of wrongdoings.

In disciplinary proceedings, the focus was on determining whether the employee’s conduct justified the termination of services or lesser punishment. Conversely, criminal proceedings aimed to establish the veracity of allegations against the individuals and determine the appropriate sentence if the same were established.

The 163-page ruling came on 35 petitions against the State of Haryana and other respondents. The question before Justice Bahl’s Bench was whether regular departmental proceedings were required to be halted, or the examination of common witnesses deferred, until the conclusion of concurrent criminal proceedings or till the examination of such witnesses in the criminal proceedings.

The petitioners’ argument was that the criminal proceedings pertained to the same incident that prompted departmental proceedings.

Justice Bahl asserted that the mode of inquiry, procedural rules, and standards of proof in criminal and departmental proceedings were distinct and different. The charge was to be established beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case, but the charge of misconduct in departmental proceedings was to be established on the principle of “preponderance of probabilities”.

He also emphasised early conclusion of departmental proceedings to not only weed out an employee whose integrity or character had been put to doubt, for maintaining discipline in service and efficiency of public service, but also to vindicate, at the earliest, the honour of those not guilty of wrongdoings.

Justice Bahl ruled that certain prerequisites were needed to be fulfilled before considering an employee’s case for a stay on departmental proceedings during the criminal case’s pendency. These included consideration of all elements, such as departmental proceedings and criminal case being grounded on identical or similar facts, as well as the gravity of charges in a criminal case involving complex legal and factual considerations.

Determining whether the charge in a criminal case was grave and the matter involved complex questions of facts and law hinged on several factors, including the nature of the offence, the specifics of the case against the employee and materials gathered during the investigation or reflected in the chargesheet.

The fact that both proceedings stemmed from identical or similar facts, coupled with the serious nature of charges in the criminal case, could not be viewed in isolation for staying departmental proceedings. Special facts warranting a stay on departmental proceedings were required to be mentioned before halting it. The departmental proceedings could be resumed and pursued to ensure a prompt conclusion if a stay was granted, but the criminal case was experiencing undue delays, Justice Bahl asserted.

About The Author

Tribune News Service

The Tribune News Service brings you the latest news, analysis and insights from the region, India and around the world. Follow the Tribune News Service for a wide-ranging coverage of events as they unfold, with perspective and clarity.

Join Whatsapp Channel of The Tribune for latest updates.