# Anand Kumar v. Union Of India & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 273
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-17
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 1738 of 2025
- **Bench:** Ajay Bhanot
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anand-kumar-v-union-of-india-anr-52651
- **Pages:** 39

## Headnote

A.S.G.I., Pranjal Mehrotra

Issue for Consideration
Permissibility of concurrence continuance of
disciplinary enquiry and criminal prosecution on
the same allegation against an employee.

Headnotes
(A)
Service
law
-
Suspension
-
Disciplinary proceedings - Allegation of
attempting to steal 13 coins was leveled
against the petitioner, while working as
the Assistant Grade - Chargesheet was
filed before trial court in criminal case -
Disciplinary enquiry was also initiated -
Validity challenged - Distinction between
object
of
criminal
prosecution
and
departmental enquiry explained :

Held : Criminal trial is instituted to bring
offenders of criminal laws to justice before a
criminal court. The offences which are the
subject matter of criminal trials are against the
society at large and are determined by the
legislature. The standard of evidence for proving
the guilt in a criminal trial is beyond reasonable
doubt - On the other hand departmental
enquiries have a narrower jurisdiction and
impact. Disciplinary enquiries are initiated
against delinquent employees for various acts of
departmental misconduct - The purpose of
departmental
enquiries
is
to
ensure
maintenance of overall institutional discipline
and integrity of the employees - The standards
of evidence in a departmental enquiry by which
guilt can be established is preponderance of
probability - The procedures of a disciplinary
enquiry are summary in nature, however, the
same
are
consistent
with
the
judicially
established norms of fairness and principles of
natural justice. [Paras 40, 41 and 42]

Further held: Staying on departmental enquiry
in the facts of this case will promote a culture of
lack of accountability, and create a sense of
immunity in the delinquent official who has
prima
facie
committed
gross
acts
of
departmental
misconduct
-
The
India
Government Mint is engaged in very sensitive
transactions, it will not be conducive in the
interest of justice to permit the enquiry to be
held in abeyance or delayed in any manner. It is
both
desirable
and
advisable
to
hold
departmental enquiry and prosecute the criminal
trial simultaneously. [Paras 52 and 54] (E-1)

Case Law Cited
Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Kushal
Bhan, AIR 1960 SC 806; Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd.
v. Workmen, AIR 1965 SC 155; Jang Bahadur
Singh v. Brij Nath Tiwari, AIR 1969 SC 30;
Kusheshwar Dubey v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.,
(1988) 4 SCC 319; State of Rajasthan v. B.K.
Meena and Others, (1996) 6 SCC 417; Depot
Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation
v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya and Ors., (1997) 2 SCC
699; Capt.M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines
Ltd. & Anr., (1999) 3 SCC 679; Kailash ChandraII
v.
State
of
U.P.
and
ors.,
2005(2)ESC1158(All); Abhai Raj Singh v. Bank
of Baroda and Ors., ILR (2005) 1 All 126; G.M.
Tank v. State of Gujarat and Ors., (2006) 5 SCC
446; The Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. M.G.
Vittal Rao, (2012) 1 SCC 442; State of Rajasthan
and Ors. v. Phool Singh, AIR 2022 SC 4176;
State Bank of India and Ors. v. P. Zadenga,
(2023) 10 SCC 675; Eastern Coalfields Limited
and Ors. v. Rabindra Kumar Bharti, (2022) 12
SCC
390;
Karnataka
Power
Transmission
Corporation Limited v. C. Nagaraju and Ors.,
(2019) 10 SCC 367; Shashi Bhusan Prasad v.
274 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Inspector General Central Industrial Security
Force and Ors., (2019) 7 SCC 797; Baljinder Pal
Kaur vs. State of Punjab and Ors., (2016) 1 SCC
671; Stanzen Toyotetsu India P. Ltd. vs. Girish
V. and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 636; The Deputy
Inspector General of Police and Ors. v. S.
Samuthiram, (2013) 1 SCC 598; Roop Singh
Negi v. Punjab National Bank and Ors., (2009) 2
SCC 570; Noida Entrepreneurs Assn. v. Noida
and Ors., (2007) 10 SCC 385; Pandiyan
Roadways Corp. Ltd. v. N. Balakrishnan, (2007)
9 SCC 755 - referred to.

List of Acts
Constitution of India - Article 141 and 142

List of Keywords
Suspension;
Disciplinary
proceeding;
Chargesheet; Theft; Article of charges; Criminal
proceeding; Depar

## Text

_Characters 0–39,706 of 129,419. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39706 for what follows._

10 All. Anand Kumar Vs. Union Of India & Anr.
273
bearing Special Appeal Defective
No.418 of 2024 is also dismissed.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 273
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ A No. 1738 of 2025

Anand Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Arvind Kumar Yadav, Narendra Kumar
Chaturvedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Pranjal Mehrotra

Issue for Consideration
Permissibility of concurrence continuance of
disciplinary enquiry and criminal prosecution on
the same allegation against an employee.

Headnotes
(A)
Service
law
-
Suspension
-
Disciplinary proceedings - Allegation of
attempting to steal 13 coins was leveled
against the petitioner, while working as
the Assistant Grade - Chargesheet was
filed before trial court in criminal case -
Disciplinary enquiry was also initiated -
Validity challenged - Distinction between
object
of
criminal
prosecution
and
departmental enquiry explained :

Held : Criminal trial is instituted to bring
offenders of criminal laws to justice before a
criminal court. The offences which are the
subject matter of criminal trials are against the
society at large and are determined by the
legislature. The standard of evidence for proving
the guilt in a criminal trial is beyond reasonable
doubt - On the other hand departmental
enquiries have a narrower jurisdiction and
impact. Disciplinary enquiries are initiated
against delinquent employees for various acts of
departmental misconduct - The purpose of
departmental
enquiries
is
to
ensure
maintenance of overall institutional discipline
and integrity of the employees - The standards
of evidence in a departmental enquiry by which
guilt can be established is preponderance of
probability - The procedures of a disciplinary
enquiry are summary in nature, however, the
same
are
consistent
with
the
judicially
established norms of fairness and principles of
natural justice. [Paras 40, 41 and 42]

Further held: Staying on departmental enquiry
in the facts of this case will promote a culture of
lack of accountability, and create a sense of
immunity in the delinquent official who has
prima
facie
committed
gross
acts
of
departmental
misconduct
-
The
India
Government Mint is engaged in very sensitive
transactions, it will not be conducive in the
interest of justice to permit the enquiry to be
held in abeyance or delayed in any manner. It is
both
desirable
and
advisable
to
hold
departmental enquiry and prosecute the criminal
trial simultaneously. [Paras 52 and 54] (E-1)

Case Law Cited
Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Kushal
Bhan, AIR 1960 SC 806; Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd.
v. Workmen, AIR 1965 SC 155; Jang Bahadur
Singh v. Brij Nath Tiwari, AIR 1969 SC 30;
Kusheshwar Dubey v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.,
(1988) 4 SCC 319; State of Rajasthan v. B.K.
Meena and Others, (1996) 6 SCC 417; Depot
Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation
v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya and Ors., (1997) 2 SCC
699; Capt.M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines
Ltd. & Anr., (1999) 3 SCC 679; Kailash ChandraII
v.
State
of
U.P.
and
ors.,
2005(2)ESC1158(All); Abhai Raj Singh v. Bank
of Baroda and Ors., ILR (2005) 1 All 126; G.M.
Tank v. State of Gujarat and Ors., (2006) 5 SCC
446; The Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. M.G.
Vittal Rao, (2012) 1 SCC 442; State of Rajasthan
and Ors. v. Phool Singh, AIR 2022 SC 4176;
State Bank of India and Ors. v. P. Zadenga,
(2023) 10 SCC 675; Eastern Coalfields Limited
and Ors. v. Rabindra Kumar Bharti, (2022) 12
SCC
390;
Karnataka
Power
Transmission
Corporation Limited v. C. Nagaraju and Ors.,
(2019) 10 SCC 367; Shashi Bhusan Prasad v.
274 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Inspector General Central Industrial Security
Force and Ors., (2019) 7 SCC 797; Baljinder Pal
Kaur vs. State of Punjab and Ors., (2016) 1 SCC
671; Stanzen Toyotetsu India P. Ltd. vs. Girish
V. and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 636; The Deputy
Inspector General of Police and Ors. v. S.
Samuthiram, (2013) 1 SCC 598; Roop Singh
Negi v. Punjab National Bank and Ors., (2009) 2
SCC 570; Noida Entrepreneurs Assn. v. Noida
and Ors., (2007) 10 SCC 385; Pandiyan
Roadways Corp. Ltd. v. N. Balakrishnan, (2007)
9 SCC 755 - referred to.

List of Acts
Constitution of India - Article 141 and 142

List of Keywords
Suspension;
Disciplinary
proceeding;
Chargesheet; Theft; Article of charges; Criminal
proceeding; Departmental enquiry; Criminal
prosecution; Concurrence continuance; Binding;
Legal
rationale;
Acquittal;
Automatic
reinstatement; Standard of evidence; Beyond
reasonable
doubt;
Coercive
jurisdiction;
Preponderance of probability; Hearsay evidence;
Fairness;
Principle
of
natural
justice;
Misconduct;
Reasonable
time;
Institutional
morale; Sensitive transaction.

Case Arising From
Impugned
order
of
suspension
dated
19.12.2024 and disciplinary proceeding against
the petitioner.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner : Narendra Chaturvedi,
Arvind Kumar yadav
Advs. For the Respondent : Pranjal Mehrotra

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)

1. The judgement is being structured
in the following conceptual framework to
facilitate the discussion:

I
Introduction
II
Facts
III
Submissions of learned counsel for
the parties
IV
Legal Issue
V
Cases in Point
A.
Pre
Paul
Anthony
B.
Paul
Anthony
C.
Post
Paul
Anthony
VI
Criminal trials and departmental
enquiry : General Observations
VII
Analysis of facts
VIII Findings and Conclusions

I. Introduction

2. The petitioner has assailed the order
of suspension dated 19.12.2024 as well as
the
disciplinary
proceedings
initiated
against him by the respondent authorities.

II. Facts

3. The petitioner is working as
Assistant-Grade III in India Government
Mint,
NOIDA.
According
to
the
respondents the petitioner was caught while
attempting to steal 13 coins of Rs. 20
denomination
on
19.12.2024
by
the
security personnel of the CISF who was on
duty at the relevant point in time. For the
aforesaid act of attempted theft an FIR was
lodged by one Harpal Singh, Assistant Sub
Inspector, CISF which came to be
registered as Case Crime No. 0561 of 2024
at Police Station- Phase I, NOIDA on
20.12.2024 at 2.02 AM.

4. The investigation has concluded and
the chargesheet has been filed before the
trial court on 27.12.2024. The prosecution
witnesses as depicted in the chargesheet are
as under:

"1. Harpal Singh
10 All. Anand Kumar Vs. Union Of India & Anr.
275

2. Barun Bharti

3. Pankaj Saini

4. Pradeep Kumar Gautam"

5. The authorities of the India
Government Mint have also initiated a
departmental enquiry into the act of theft
committed by the petitioner. The petitioner
has assailed the said enquiry proceedings.
The departmental enquiry proceedings
were initiated against the petitioner by
drawing up a chargesheet on 03.12.2024.
The article of charge as depicted in the
chargesheet is extracted hereunder:

"Statement of Article of Charge
framed
against
Sh.
Anand
Kumar,
Operator,
Level-W4
(U/s),
India
Government Mint, Noida

Article I

That the said Sh. Anand Kumar,
Operator, Level-W4, SAP-279 (U/s), while
working in the Counting Section of IGM
Noida was caught red-handed at the time of
frisking/searching by Shri Barun Bharti, the
Security
Personnel
of
CISF
(No.
170709785, Constable/GD) deployed at the
Technical Lobby Gate (hard security area)
in the evening around 6:14 P.M. on
19.12.2024 in the act of attempt to steal out
13 nos. of coins of Rs. 20 denominations
holding in his left fist. The details of the
episode are set out in the Statement of
Imputations attached as Annexure II.

By doing the above act, Shri
Anand Kumar, Operator, Level-W4 (SAP279) has failed to comply with the
directives mentioned in Rules-4 (1)-
General of SPMCIL Conduct Discipline
Appeal Rules 2020 under Sub Rule (i)
which stipulates that every employee shall
maintain absolute integrity, (iii) which
stipulates that an employee should do
nothing which is unbecoming of a public
servant, (vi) which mandates an employee
too maintain high ethical standards and
honesty, (xviii) which says that an
employee shall refrain from doing anything
which is, or may be, contrary to any law,
rules, regulations & established practices
etc.,
(xxi)
which
stipulates
that
an
employee shall conduct himself at all times
in a manner conducive to the best interest
of the company which will enhance the
reputation of the company, (xxii) which
mandates that an employee shall do noting
which shall lower the image of the
company.

The act/conduct of Shri Anand
Kumar (SAP-279) tantamount to following
misconduct
under
SPMCIL
Conduct,
Discipline and Appeal Rules, 2020:-

a. Rule 5(1) as per which theft,
fraud or dishonesty etc. in connection with
the business or property of the company
will constitute misconduct,

b. Rule 5(5) which says that
acting in a manner prejudicial to the
interests of the company amounts to
miscondut,

c. Rule 5(18) as per which
commission of any act which amounts to a
criminal
offense
will
constitutes
misconduct.

d. Rule 5(21) which says that
commission of any acts subversive of
discipline or which amounts to a criminal
offence will be treated as misconduct.

e. Rule 5(34) which stipulates
that involvement any type of fraud, forgery
276 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
or
criminal
offence
will
constitute
misconduct."

6. The list of documents which are
proposed to be relied upon against the
petitioner
and
as
depicted
in
the
departmental chargesheet are extracted
hereunder:

"LIST OF DOCUMENTS

1) Confessional Statement dated
19.12.2024 of Shri Anand Kumar (SAP ID279)

2)
Special
Report
dated
19.12.2024 of the AC, CISF, addressed to
CGM, IGMN

3) Crime incident memo and
seizure memo dated 19.12.2024 submitted
by Shri Harpal Singh, ASI, CISF (No.
895021157)

4)
Note
dated
19.12.2024
submitted
by
Shri
Prabhat
Thakur,
Supervisor (Technical)

5)
Order
dated
19.12.2024
suspending Shri Anand Kumar from the
services of IGMN bearing no. IGMN - 1
40/3/1(195)/11/Estt.II/692.

6) Report dated 21.12.2024 of the
3 member committee of officers which
enquired into the matter, along with
enclosures thereto.

7) Letter dated 24.12.2024 from
AM(Legal) to the investigating officer,
Police Station, Noida Phase-1, handing
over a Pen Drive containing 03 nos. CCTV
footage alongwith 01 camera videography
of the incident.

8) 03 nos. CCTV footages of
incident dated 19.12.2024 relevant to the
case.

9)
One
camera
videography
containing the statement of Shri Anand
Kumar taken by Company Commander/
Inspector CISF on 19.12.2024."

7. The list of witnesses proposed by
the department to bring home the charge of
aforesaid misconduct as recorded in the
chargesheet are recorded hereunder:

"LIST OF WITNESSES

1. Shri B.B. Sharma, Assistant
Commandant, CISF

2. Shri Roshan Keshri, Company
Commander/Inspector, CISF

3. Shri Harpal Singh, ASI, CISF
(No. 895021157)

4. Shri Barun Bharti, Constable
CISF (No. 170709785)

5. Shri Prakash Kumar, JGM
(HR)

6. Ms. Renu Bhasin, DGM (HR)

7. Shri Pankaj Khurana, DGM
(TO)

8. Shri Hitesh Tanwar, Manager
(TO)

9. Shri Lalit Verma, Dy. Manager
(TO)

10.
Shri
Prabhat
Thakur,
Supervisor (T)"
10 All. Anand Kumar Vs. Union Of India & Anr.
277

III. Submissions of learned counsel
for the parties

8. Shri Narendra Chaturvedi, learned
counsel for the petitioner contends that:

i. The disciplinary enquiry and
the criminal proceedings cannot proceed
simultaneously.
The
disciplinary
proceedings against the petitioner is in the
teeth of law laid down by the Constitutional
Courts.

ii. The evidence in the criminal
proceedings
and
the
departmental
proceedings is same.

9. Shri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned
counsel for the respondent submits that:

i. The criminal trial and the
disciplinary
proceedings
can
continue
simultaneously.

ii. The evidences proposed by the
prosecution in the criminal case and the
departmental enquiry are not the same.
Though,
admittedly
there
are
some
overlapping evidences.

iii.
The
purpose
of
the
disciplinary
enquiry
and
criminal
proceedings are entirely distinct.

10. Learned counsels for both parties
have relied upon various case laws which
will be discussed in the succeeding part of
the narrative.

IV. Legal Issue

11. Whether in the facts of this case
the disciplinary enquiry has to be stayed
pending the criminal trial?

V. Cases in point

12. The plethora of case laws in point
evidences the fact that the legal issue which
is the subject matter of the instant
controversy has engaged the attention of
constitutional courts on a regular basis. The
development of law has seen three phases
namely pre Paul Anthony, Paul Anthony
and post Paul Anthony.

V-A. Pre Paul Anthony

13. Among the earliest holdings which
have been noticed, the holdings of the
Supreme Court on the issue which continue
to be noticed in the constitutional discourse
was the judgement rendered in Delhi Cloth
and General Mills Ltd. vs. Kushal Bhan1
wherein the principles of natural justice did
not constrain the employer from taking
disciplinary action against the employer
even as the criminal proceedings are on
foot before the trial court. The Court also
observed "We may, however, add that if
the case is of a grave nature or involves
questions of fact or law, which are not
simple, it would be advisable for the
employer to await the decision of the trial
court, so that the defence of the employee
in
the
criminal
case
may
not
be
prejudiced".

14. The same principal was elaborated
in Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Workmen2
by holding:

"9. ......it is desirable that if the
incident giving rise to a charge framed
against a workman in a domestic enquiry is
being tried in a criminal court, the
employer should stay the domestic enquiry
pending the final disposal of the criminal
case. It would be particularly appropriate to
adopt such a course where the charge
against the workman is of a grave
character, because in such a case, it would
278 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
be unfair to compel the workman to
disclose the defence which he may take
before the criminal court. But to say that
domestic enquiries may be stayed pending
criminal trial is very different from
anything that if an employer proceeds with
the domestic enquiry in spite of the fact
that the criminal trial is pending, the
enquiry for that reason alone is vitiated and
the conclusion reached in such an enquiry
is either bad in law or mala fide."

15. The Supreme Court invalidated the
contention that instead of disciplinary
proceedings during pendency of criminal
trial on the same facts amounts to contempt
of Court in Jang Bahadur Singh v. Brij
Nath Tiwari3 :

"3. The issue in the disciplinary
proceedings is whether the employee is
guilty of the charges on which it is
proposed to take action against him. The
same issue may arise for decision in a civil
or criminal proceeding pending in a court.
But the pendency of the court proceeding
does not bar the taking of disciplinary
action. The power of taking such action is
vested in the disciplinary authority. The
civil or criminal court has no such power.
The
initiation
and
continuation
of
disciplinary proceedings in good faith is
not calculated to obstruct or interfere with
the course of justice in the pending court
proceeding. The employee is free to move
the court for an order restraining the
continuance
of
the
disciplinary
proceedings. If he obtains a stay order, a
wilful violation of the order would of
course amount to contempt of court. In the
absence of a stay order the disciplinary
authority is free to exercise its lawful
powers."

16. Subsequently, the aforesaid case
laws were considered by the Supreme
Court in Kusheshwar Dubey v. Bharat
Coking Coal Ltd. 4 and the law was
propounded as under:

"7. The view expressed in the
three cases of this Court seem to support
the position that while there could be no
legal bar for simultaneous proceedings
being taken, yet, there may be cases where
it
would
be
appropriate
to
defer
disciplinary proceedings awaiting disposal
of the criminal case. In the latter class of
cases it would be open to the delinquent
employee to seek such an order of stay or
injunction from the court. Whether in the
facts and circumstances of a particular case
there should or should not be such
simultaneity of the proceedings would then
receive judicial consideration and the court
will decide in the given circumstances of a
particular
case
as
to
whether
the
disciplinary
proceedings
should
be
interdicted, pending criminal trial. As we
have already stated that it is neither
possible nor advisable to evolve a hard and
fast, strait-jacket formula valid for all cases
and of general application without regard to
the
particularities
of
the
individual
situation. For the disposal of the present
case, we do not think it necessary to say
anything more, particularly when we do not
intend to lay down any general guideline."

17. The same issue regarding stay of
departmental enquiry till conclusion of a
criminal trial arose before the Supreme
Court in State of Rajasthan v. B.K.
Meena and Others5.

"14. It would be evident from the
above decisions that each of them starts
with the indisputable proposition that there
is no legal bar for both proceedings to go
on simultaneously and then say that in
certain situations, it may not be 'desirable',
'advisable' or 'appropriate' to proceed with
10 All. Anand Kumar Vs. Union Of India & Anr.
279
the disciplinary enquiry when a criminal
case is pending on identical charges. The
staying of disciplinary proceedings, it is
emphasised, is a matter to be determined
having
regard
to
the
facts
and
circumstances of a given case and that no
hard and fast rules can be enunciated in that
behalf. The only ground suggested in the
above decisions as constituting a valid
ground
for
staying
the
disciplinary
proceedings is that "the defence of the
employee in the criminal case may not be
prejudiced". This ground has, however,
been hedged in by providing further that
this may be done in cases of grave nature
involving questions of fact and law. In our
respectful opinion, it means that not only
the charges must be grave but that the case
must involve complicated questions of law
and
fact.
Moreover,
'advisability',
'desirability' or 'propriety', as the case may
be, has to be determined in each case taking
into consideration all the facts and
circumstances of the case. The ground
indicated in D.C.M. [(1960) 3 SCR 227 :
AIR 1960 SC 806 : (1960) 1 LLJ 520] and
Tata Oil Mills [(1964) 7 SCR 555 : AIR
1965 SC 155 : (1964) 2 LLJ 113] is also
not an invariable rule. It is only a factor
which will go into the scales while judging
the advisability or desirability of staying
the disciplinary proceedings. One of the
contending considerations is that the
disciplinary enquiry cannot be - and
should not be - delayed unduly. So far as
criminal cases are concerned, it is well
known that they drag on endlessly where
high officials or persons holding high
public offices are involved. They get
bogged down on one or the other ground.
They
hardly
ever
reach
a
prompt
conclusion. That is the reality in spite of
repeated advice and admonitions from this
Court and the High Courts. If a criminal
case is unduly delayed that may itself be a
good ground for going ahead with the
disciplinary
enquiry
even
where
the
disciplinary proceedings are held over at an
earlier
stage.
The
interests
of
administration
and
good
government
demand
that
these
proceedings
are
concluded
expeditiously.
It
must
be
remembered that interests of administration
demand that undesirable elements are
thrown
out
and
any
charge
of
misdemeanour is enquired into promptly.
The disciplinary proceedings are meant not
really to punish the guilty but to keep the
administrative machinery unsullied by
getting rid of bad elements. The interest of
the delinquent officer also lies in a prompt
conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.
If he is not guilty of the charges, his honour
should be vindicated at the earliest possible
moment and if he is guilty, he should be
dealt with promptly according to law. It is
not also in the interest of administration
that
persons
accused
of
serious
misdemeanour should be continued in
office indefinitely, i.e., for long periods
awaiting the result of criminal proceedings.
It is not in the interest of administration. It
only serves the interest of the guilty and
dishonest. While it is not possible to
enumerate the various factors, for and
against the stay of disciplinary proceedings,
we found it necessary to emphasise some of
the important considerations in view of the
fact that very often the disciplinary
proceedings are being stayed for long
periods pending criminal proceedings. Stay
of disciplinary proceedings cannot be, and
should not be, a matter of course. All the
relevant factors, for and against, should be
weighed and a decision taken keeping in
view the various principles laid down in the
decisions referred to above.

17. There is yet another reason.
The approach and the objective in the
280 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
criminal proceedings and the disciplinary
proceedings is altogether distinct and
different. In the disciplinary proceedings,
the question is whether the respondent is
guilty of such conduct as would merit his
removal
from
service
or
a
lesser
punishment, as the case may be, whereas in
the criminal proceedings the question is
whether the offences registered against him
under the Prevention of Corruption Act
(and the Penal Code, 1860, if any) are
established
and, if
established,
what
sentence should be imposed upon him. The
standard of proof, the mode of enquiry and
the rules governing the enquiry and trial in
both the cases are entirely distinct and
different.
Staying
of
disciplinary
proceedings pending criminal proceedings,
to repeat, should not be a matter of course
but a considered decision. Even if stayed at
one stage, the decision may require
reconsideration if the criminal case gets
unduly delayed."

18. The purposes of departmental
enquiry and criminal prosecution were
examined in depth in Depot Manager,
A.P. State Road Transport Corporation
v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya and Ors.6 while
determining the said issue and the law was
laid down as under:

"8.
We
are
in
respectful
agreement with the above view. The
purpose of departmental enquiry and of
prosecution are two different and distinct
aspects.
The
criminal
prosecution
is
launched for an offence for violation of a
duty, the offender owes to the society or for
breach of which law has provided that the
offender shall make satisfaction to the
public. So crime is an act of commission in
violation of law or of omission of public
duty. The departmental enquiry is to
maintain discipline in the service and
efficiency of public service. It would,
therefore, be expedient that the disciplinary
proceedings are conducted and completed
as expeditiously as possible. It is not,
therefore, desirable to lay down any
guidelines as inflexible rules in which the
departmental proceedings may or may not
be stayed pending trial in criminal case
against the delinquent officer. Each case
requires to be considered in the backdrop of
its own facts and circumstances. There
would be no bar to proceed simultaneously
with departmental enquiry and trial of a
criminal case unless the charge in the
criminal trial is of grave nature involving
complicated questions of fact and law.
Offence generally implies infringement of
public (sic duty), as distinguished from
mere private rights punishable under
criminal law. When trial for criminal
offence is conducted it should be in
accordance with proof of the offence as per
the evidence defined under the provisions
of the Evidence Act. Converse is the case
of departmental enquiry. The enquiry in a
departmental
proceedings
relates
to
conduct or breach of duty of the delinquent
officer to punish him for his misconduct
defined under the relevant statutory rules or
law. That the strict standard of proof or
applicability of the Evidence Act stands
excluded is a settled legal position. The
enquiry in the departmental proceedings
relates to the conduct of the delinquent
officer and proof in that behalf is not as
high as in an offence in criminal charge. It
is seen that invariably the departmental
enquiry has to be conducted expeditiously
so as to effectuate efficiency in public
administration and the criminal trial will
take its own course. The nature of evidence
in criminal trial is entirely different from
the departmental proceedings. In the
former, prosecution is to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt on the touchstone
10 All. Anand Kumar Vs. Union Of India & Anr.
281
of human conduct. The standard of proof in
the departmental proceedings is not the
same as of the criminal trial. The evidence
also is different from the standard point of
the Evidence Act. The evidence required in
the departmental enquiry is not regulated
by
the
Evidence
Act.
Under
these
circumstances, what is required to be seen
is whether the departmental enquiry would
seriously prejudice the delinquent in his
defence at the trial in a criminal case. It is
always a question of fact to be considered
in each case depending on its own facts and
circumstances. In this case, we have seen
that the charge is failure to anticipate the
accident and prevention thereof. It has
nothing to do with the culpability of the
offence under Sections 304-A and 338,
IPC. Under these circumstances, the High
Court was not right in staying the
proceedings."

V-B. Paul Anthony

19. Milestone in the law occurred
when the Supreme Court propounded the
law on the issue of concurrent continuance
of
disciplinary
enquiry
and criminal
prosecution in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v.
Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr.7 by
observing:

"22. The conclusions which are
deducible from various decisions of this
Court referred to above are:

(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 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 offence, the nature of the
case launched against the employee on the
basis of evidence and material collected
against him during 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.

(v) If the criminal case does not
proceed or its disposal is being unduly
delayed, the departmental proceedings,
even if they were stayed on account of the
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."

20. The judgement rendered in Capt.
M. Paul Anthony(supra) was a milestone
in the law inasmuch as its applicability
became a matter of considerable depth. On
many occasions the ratio in Capt. M. Paul
Anthony(supra) was seen as judicial
mandate to ipso facto stay departmental
proceedings on the criminal trial on the
same set of facts.
282 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

21. Consequently on many occasions
attempts were made to understand the ratio
of Capt. M. Paul Anthony(supra) and
prevent the misconstruction of the same.
Misconstruing the law laid down in Capt.
M. Paul Anthony(supra) would have
grave consequences inasmuch as the
departmental enquiries would practically
come to stand still since criminal trials
invariably take a long time to decide.

V-C Post Paul Anthony

22.
The
issue
of
simultaneous
continuance
of
criminal
trial
and
departmental proceedings grounded on
identical set of facts and consequences of
acquittal in the criminal case arose for
consideration before this Court in Kailash
Chandra-II v. State of U.P. and ors. 8.

23. This Court upon consideration of
the factual matrix in which the judgement
in Capt. M. Paul Anthony(supra) was
rendered
held
that
Capt.
M.
Paul
Anthony(supra) was made in peculiar
facts and circumstances of the aforesaid
case held in the context of Capt. M. Paul
Anthony(supra) "that the decision appears
to have been made in peculiar facts and
circumstances of the aforesaid case and has
not been acknowledged to law laid down in
general
under
Article
141
of
the
Constitution of India and rather should be
treated to one under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India having binding upon
the purpose alone". The legal rationale for
the said holding was enunciated in Kailash
Chandra-II(supra):

"23. In Capt. M. Paul Anthony, v.
Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Anr. reported
in MANU/SC/0225/1999 : AIR 1999 S.C.
1416, the question in controversy was in a
slightly different context wherein both the
proceedings were held simultaneously
against the employee concerned and in
disciplinary inquiry he was dismissed from
service. Later on he was acquitted by the
court from criminal charge levelled against
him. The Hon'ble Apex Court found as a
fact that during the period of suspension the
employee
concerned
was
not
paid
subsistence allowance in as much as
disciplinary inquiry was also held ex parte .
The court dealing with criminal case has
thrown out the entire prosecution story and
found as false and had held that prosecution
has failed to establish the guilt against the
employee concerned. In view of those facts
and circumstances of the case, the question
for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex
Court was as to whether if the departmental
proceedings in a criminal case based on
identical set of fact and in which employee
acquitted in criminal case as to whether
such
acquittal
can
conclude
the
departmental proceedings? In paras 34, 35
and 36 of the judgment, the apex court has
held that if the whole case of prosecution
was thrown out and employee was
acquitted
by
judicial
pronouncement
holding that the criminal case was wholly
false. It would be unjust, unfair rather
oppressive to allow the findings recorded
as ex parte in departmental proceedings to
stand. For ready reference relevant portion
of paras 34, 35 and 36 are being quoted as
under :-

34. ".... The same witnesses were
examined in the criminal case but the
Court, on a consideration of the entire
evidence, came to the conclusion that no
search was conducted nor was any recovery
made from the residence of the appellant.
The whole case of the prosecution was
thrown out and the appellant was acquitted.
In this situation, therefore, where the
appellant is acquitted by a judicial
10 All. Anand Kumar Vs. Union Of India & Anr.
283
pronouncement with the finding that the
'`raid and recovery' at the residence of the
appellant were not proved, it would be
unjust, unfair and rather oppressive to
allow the findings recorded at the ex parte
departmental proceedings, to stand.

35. Since the facts and the
evidence in both the proceedings, namely,
the departmental proceedings and the
criminal case were the same without there
being any iota of difference, the distinction,
which is usually drawn as between the
departmental proceedings and the criminal
case on the basis of approach and burden of
proof, would not be applicable to the
instant case."

36.
".
In
the
peculiar
circumstances of the case, specially having
regard to the fact that the appellant is
undergoing this agony since 1985 despite
having been acquitted by the criminal
Court in 1987, we would not direct any
fresh departmental inquiry to be instituted
against him on the same facts. The
appellant shall be reinstated forth-with on
the post of Security Officer and shall also
be paid entire arrears of salary, together
with all allowances from the date of
suspension till his reinstatement, within
three months."

24. Except last one case of Capt.
M. Paul Anthony all the cases referred
herein before, are the cases in which the
Government
servant
or
delinquent
employees were prosecuted in criminal
offence by postponing the domestic inquiry
in respect of their alleged misconduct
which was also subject matter and
foundation of prosecution in a criminal trial
and after their acquittal in criminal trial
according to law laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court as well as other High Court
referred earlier their such misconduct in
departmental inquiry vis-a-vis nature of
their acquittal were subject in issue for
consideration. In that context the Hon'ble
Apex Court as well as other Courts have
held that except in a case of clean and
honourable acquittal on merit in other cases
of acquittal referred in earlier part of this
judgment, it is open for the departmental
authorities to hold departmental inquiry in
respect
of
misconduct
of
delinquent
employee and take appropriate and proper
action in accordance with the provisions of
law. Only in case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony
the departmental inquiry though ex parte
has already been ended in the dismissal of
the appellant of the aforesaid case. Later on
in a criminal trial the appellant was
acquitted and Hon'ble Supreme Court
found that the prosecution story has been
found false and thrown out by criminal
court. In that situation the Hon'ble Apex
Court has held that in given facts and
circumstances of the case it would be
unjust, unfair rather oppressive to allow the
findings
recorded
at
the
ex
parte
departmental proceedings to stand and in
peculiar circumstances of the case specially
having regard to the fact that the appellant
is under going this agony since 1985
despite having been acquitted by criminal
court in 1987, it would not be desirable to
direct any fresh departmental inquiry to be
instituted against the appellant on the same
set of facts and appellant was directed to be
reinstated forthwith on the post in question
with arrears of salary together with other
allowances from the date of suspension till
the
date
of
his
reinstatement.
The
observation made by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in para 36 of the decision appears to
have been made in peculiar facts and
circumstances of the aforesaid case and has
not been intended to lay down any general
proposition for universal application under
284 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Article 141 of the Constitution of India
rather it should be understood in facts and
circumstances of the case and should be
treated to be under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India, which have binding
effect between the parties alone. Therefore,
the observations made in para 36 of the
decision should not be treated as 'ratio of
the decision'. What is ratio of the decision
of the aforesaid case can be found out on
reading of paras 34 and 35 of the aforesaid
decision.

25. In order to make it clear, I
would like to refer observations of the
Hon'ble Apex Court made in this regard in
paras 18 and 19 of the judgment rendered
in the case of Krishena Kumar v. Union of
India and Ors., AIR 1990 Supreme Court
1782:-

18. The doctrine of precedent that
is being bound by a previous decision, is
limited to the decision itself and as to what
is necessarily involved in it. It does not
mean that this Court is bound by the
various reasons given in support of it,
especially when they contain "propositions
wider than the case itself required." This
was what Lord Selborne said in Caledonian
Railway Co. v. Walker's Trustees (1882)(7)
AC 259) and Lord Halsbury in Quinn v.
Leathem
(1901)
AC
495(502),
Sir
Frederick Pollock has also said: "Judicial
authority belongs not to the exact words
used in this or that judgment, nor even to
all the reasons given, but only to the
principles
accepted
and
applied
as
necessary grounds of the decision."

19.
In
other
words,
the
enunciation of the reason or principle upon
which a Question before a Court has been
decided is alone as a precedent. The ratio
decidendi is the under-lying principle,
namely, the general reasons or the general
grounds upon which the decision is based
on the test or abstract from the specific
peculiarities of the particular case, which
gives rise to the decision. The ratio
decidendi has to be ascertained by an
analysis of the facts of the case and the
process of reasoning involving the major
premise consisting of a preexisting rule of
law, either statutory or Judge-made, and a
minor premise consisting of the material
facts
of
the
case
under
immediate
consideration, if it is not clear, it is not the
duty of the Court to spell it out with
difficulty in order to be hound by it. In the
words of Halsbury, 4th Edn. Vol.26 para
573:

"The concrete decision alone is
binding between the parties to it, but it is
the abstract ratio decidendi, as ascertained
on a consideration of the judgment in
relation to the subject matter of the
decision, which alone has the force of law
and which when it is clear it is not part of a
tribunals duty to spell out with difficulty a
ratio decidendi in order to be bound by it,
and it is always dangerous to take one or
two observations out of a long judgment
and treat them as if they save the ratio
decidendi of the case. If more reasons than
one are given by a tribunal for its judgment
all are taken as forming the ratio
decidendi."

24. A similar distinction was drawn by
another learned single Judge of this Court
in Abhai Raj Singh v. Bank of Baroda
and Ors.9 after taking a composite view in
light of the case laws holding the field:

"5. It is a well-settled principle of
law that the degree of proof required in a
departmental inquiry is vastly different than
the degree of proof required to prove a
10 All. Anand Kumar Vs. Union Of India & Anr.
285
criminal charge. In the departmental
inquiry the finding can be recorded in
preponderance of probabilities and it is not
necessary that the charge must be proved to
the hilt. The departmental proceedings and
the criminal proceedings are entirely
different in nature. They operate in
different fields and they have different
objectives. The materials or the evidence in
the two proceedings may or may not be the
same and, in some cases, at least, materials
or evidence which would be relevant or
open for consideration in the departmental
proceeding, may be irrelevant in the
criminal proceeding. The rules relating to
the appreciation of the evidence m the two
inquiries may also be different. The
standard of proof, the mode of enquiry and
the rules governing the enquiry and the trial
in both the cases are entirely distinct and
different.

6. The law is well settled that the
inquiry officer can come to a different
conclusion than arrived at by a criminal
Court and that it is immaterial whether the
charges were identical or the witnesses
were the same, as long as the power
exercised by the criminal Court and the
inquiry under the relevant law and the
service law was distinct and separate.