Disciplinary proceedings are quasi-judicial proceedings that are required to be followed by the disciplinary authorities for the purpose of determining the veracity of allegations of misconduct levelled against a Government servant, and in case of the Government servant being found guilty of the charge, to punish him in strict conformity with the provisions of service rules. On the other hand, criminal proceedings are adversarial judicial proceedings meant to establish whether ingredients of the alleged offence are made out against the person accused of any crime and if found guilty of any offence, accused is punished under the penal statue for the time being in force.
A moot question arises whether an employee can be subjected to simultaneous disciplinary proceedings for the same set of facts for which criminal proceedings are also pending trial before the competent court. Primarily any malfeasance attributable to a public servant under service rules has civil consequences and should be dealt with according to service law. But simultaneously a misconduct committed by an employee has the element of crime as well for which the proceedings under the criminal law can be separately initiated against the delinquent employee.
Underlying the object behind disciplinary& criminal proceedings, apex court in, Bhagwan Singh vs. Deputy Commissioner Sitapur, AIR 1962 All 232: 1962 (1) CrLJ 554,has held “ that the purpose of two proceedings appears to be quite different. The object behind disciplinary proceedings is to ascertain whether the officer concerned is suitable to be retained in service. On the other hand the object of the criminal prosecution is to find out whether ingredients of the offence as defined in the penal statute have been made. The area covered by two proceedings is not exactly identical”
In Lalit Popli vs Canara Bank & Ors on 18 February, 2003, Honourable apex Court has held “that two proceedings are altogether distinct and different. In the disciplinary proceedings the preliminary question is whether the employee is guilty of such conduct as would merit action against him; whereas in criminal proceedings the question is whether the offences registered against him are established and if established what sentence should be imposed upon him.
Elaborating on the legal validity of concurrent proceedings , In Mehra Singh vs. Supdt. of Post offices, Jabalpur, AIR 1962 MP 72, apex court has held:
“Holding of a departmental proceedings during pendency of a criminal prosecution in respect of the same subject-matter would not amount to a contempt of court. The departmental authorities are free to exercise such lawful powers as are conferred on them by the departmental rules and regulations and such exercise of powers bonafide will not come within the mischief of the law of contempt, especially when the departmental authorities did not publish their orders nor tried to influence the court in any manner.”
A full bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. v. Mohd. Yusuf Miyan and others, (1997) 2 SCC 699, “ held that there is no bar to proceed simultaneously with the departmental enquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the charge in the criminal case is of a grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law”.
This issue was once again came up for consideration in the case of, Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd and Anr (1999) 3 SCC 679, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the following five parameters to help make Departmental Proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately:
(i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately.
(ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on an identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case.
(iii).Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of the offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during the investigation or as reflected in the charge sheet.
(iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed.
(d) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings even if were stayed on account of pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest.”
As per the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court, it is legally permissible to conduct the departmental proceeding as well as the criminal proceedings simultaneously on the same charges
The legal position in this regard was further crystallized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. B.K.Meena and Ors on 27 September, 1996, “it was settled that the approach and objective in the criminal proceeding and disciplinary proceeding are altogether distinct and different. On one hand in the disciplinary proceeding, the question is whether the employee is guilty of such conduct which may merit his dismissal or imposition of any other punishment as per service rules, as the case may be, but in the criminal proceeding, the question is whether an offence attributed against the employee, if established, would warrant punishment under the criminal law.
No doubt, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has settled through a catena of judgments that the standard of proof, procedure of enquiry and the Rules governing disciplinary proceeding are altogether different from the standard of proof, mode of trial and the provisions governing the criminal act in disciplinary proceeding and an employee may be punished on mere preponderance of probability in a departmental proceeding whereas to establish the charge against him under the criminal law the employee has to be proved guilty beyond doubt, on these premises the legal proposition was settled that stay of disciplinary proceeding during pendency of criminal proceeding should not be a matter of routine but has to be considered decision based upon thefacts that the evidences in departmental and criminal proceedings are same and identical as well as based upon similar set of facts and the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact but similarity in evidence, the facts of the charges are the issues which have to be considered only after the charges have been framed in the criminal case and the Chargesheet has been issued in the departmental proceedings.
The law on point of continuance and conclusion of the departmental proceedings pending criminal proceedings is no more res Integra.
The issue once again came for consideration before the Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh in, K.Sridhar Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Andhra Pradesh High Court after considering the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court on the point, “reiterated the settled legal position that the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal proceedings may continue simultaneously and pendency of the criminal proceedings is no legal bar in conducting departmental proceedings. This Court further held that the gravity of the charge is not by itself enough to determine the question unless the charge involves complicated questions of law and fact and even when the charge is found to be serious involving complicated questions of law and fact and there is likelihood of the prejudice to be caused to the delinquent employee in criminal proceedings, the Court has to keep in consideration that the criminal trials prolong indefinitely and the departmental proceedings cannot be suspended or delayed unduly, and even where the departmental proceedings have been stayed they can be resumed even pending criminal proceedings.”
This issue has became point of consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court numerous cases and in the case of Pravin Kumar vs. Union of India, 10 September 2020, “the Hon’ble Apex Court held that it is beyond debate that criminal proceedings are distinct from civil proceedings. It is both possible and common in disciplinary matters to establish charges against a delinquent official by preponderance of probabilities and consequently terminate his services. But the same set of evidence may not be sufficient to take away his liberty under our criminal law jurisprudence. Such distinction between standards of proof amongst civil and criminal litigation is deliberate, given the differences in stakes, the power imbalance between the parties and the social costs of an erroneous decision. Thus, in a disciplinary enquiry, strict rules of evidence and procedure of a criminal trial are inapplicable, like say, statements made before enquiry officers can be relied upon in certain instances. It was further held that the employer always retains the right to conduct an independent disciplinary proceeding, irrespective of the outcome of a criminal proceeding.”
In Ajit Kumar Nag vs G.M.(P.J.)Indian Oil Corporation. … on 19 September, 2005, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “the two proceedings, criminal and departmental, are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with service rules. In a criminal trial, incriminating statement made by the accused in certain circumstances or before certain officers is totally inadmissible in evidence. Such strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental proceedings. The degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency. The rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused “beyond reasonable doubt”, he cannot be convicted by a court of law. In a departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis o “preponderance of probability”.
Conclusion:
Thus, it is well settled in law that the disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings may continue simultaneously against errant Government servant of being involved in a criminal case 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. Stay of disciplinary proceedings may be an advisable course in cases where the criminal charge against the employee is grave and continuance of the disciplinary proceedings is likely to prejudice their defense before the criminal Court. Gravity of the charge is, however, not by itself enough to determine the question unless the charge involves complicated question of law and fact.
Crime is an act of commission, in violation of law or misconduct of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in service and officials of the public service. In criminal cases, strict rules of evidence are applicable. In departmental proceedings, the rules of evidence do not strictly apply. The delinquent employee is liable to be punished on proof of misconduct. The disciplinary authority is under a statutory obligation to ensure that the delinquent employee does not get any undue benefit because of long pendency of criminal proceedings. It is, expedient that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible and the authority need not to await the outcome of the decision of the investigating/prosecuting agency or court trial.
The writer is a Former Attorney at Law J&K High Court, presently Government Law Officer. He is also pursuing Masters in Political Science through Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU). Feedback at [email protected]

Mudasir Khan