The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has ruled that departmental disciplinary proceedings and a criminal trial on the same set of facts can proceed simultaneously, dismissing a petition filed by an employee of the India Government Mint, NOIDA.
In the judgment delivered by Justice Ajay Bhanot, the Court held that a disciplinary enquiry cannot be “kept pending indefinitely” to await the conclusion of a criminal trial, especially in an institution with sensitive functions. The Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Anand Kumar, who had sought a stay on the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him for alleged theft.
Case Background
The petitioner, Anand Kumar, is an Assistant-Grade III at the India Government Mint, NOIDA. According to the facts recorded in the judgment, 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.”
Following the incident, an FIR was lodged (Case Crime No. 0561 of 2024), and a criminal investigation concluded with a chargesheet filed before the trial court on 27.12.2024.
Separately, the authorities at the India Government Mint initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. He was suspended by an order dated 19.12.2024. A departmental chargesheet was issued, framing the “Article of Charge” that the petitioner was “caught red-handed… in the act of attempt to steal out 13 nos. of coins of Rs. 20 denominations.”
The petitioner filed Writ-A No. 1738 of 2025 to challenge both the suspension order and the disciplinary proceedings.
Submissions of the Parties
Shri Narendra Chaturvedi, counsel for the petitioner, contended that the disciplinary enquiry and the criminal proceedings cannot proceed simultaneously. It was argued that the evidence in both proceedings is the same, and allowing the departmental enquiry to continue would prejudice the petitioner.
Shri Pranjal Mehrotra, counsel for the respondent (Union of India), submitted that the two proceedings can continue simultaneously. The counsel argued that the evidence proposed in the criminal case and the departmental enquiry is not the same, although there are “some overlapping evidences.” Furthermore, it was contended that the “purpose of the disciplinary enquiry and criminal proceedings are entirely distinct.”
Legal Issue and Court’s Analysis
The central legal issue identified by the Court was “Whether in the facts of this case the disciplinary enquiry has to be stayed pending the criminal trial?”
The Court conducted an extensive review of case law, noting that the judgment in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. (which suggested a stay) does not “lay down the law of universal application” and must be appreciated in its “unique facts.”
Justice Ajay Bhanot emphasized the fundamental differences between the two proceedings in Section VI of the judgment, “Criminal trials and departmental enquiry: General Observations.”
The judgment states that a criminal trial’s purpose is to bring offenders to justice for offences “against the society at large,” with a standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt.”
In contrast, a departmental enquiry has a narrower purpose: “to ensure maintenance of overall institutional discipline and integrity of the employees.” The judgment highlights that in such enquiries, the “standards of evidence… is preponderance of probability. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence in departmental enquiries while the same is not admissible in criminal trials.”
Applying this to the present case, the Court found:
- The lists of witnesses in the departmental enquiry and the criminal chargesheet are different, “Though admittedly some of the witnesses overlap.” The Court held this “itself shows that the scope of departmental proceedings… is at variance with the prosecution case.”
- The case “does not involve complicated questions of fact and law. In fact the proceedings are primarily based on facts.”
- The criminal trial has not yet commenced, and the Court “takes judicial notice of the long delays in the criminal justice system.” Therefore, the “disciplinary enquiry cannot be kept pending indefinitely without end of the criminal trial in sight.”
Findings and Final Decision
The Court concluded that the “imperative of continuing the enquiry outweighs the consequences of staying” it.
The judgment noted the “very critical functions” of the India Government Mint, which “have a direct bearing on the economy of the country.” It held that “Expeditious conclusion of the enquiry by adopting fair proceedings will ensure probity in the individual conduct of the employees and accountability in the overall institutional functioning.”
In its finding, the Court observed that interdicting the enquiry would have “grave consequences.”
“The petitioner is charged with the misconduct of theft of government money from the Government of India Mint,” the judgment reads. “Permitting the petitioner to continue who charged with serious misconduct to function as if it was business as usual instead of exposing him to expeditious departmental procedures will not be conducive to institutional interests of the Government of India Mint, and rule of law in the department.”
The Court found that staying the enquiry “will promote a culture of lack of accountability, and create a sense of immunity in the delinquent official.” It held that the “Evil consequences flowing from the stay of departmental proceedings will far outweigh gains of stalling the departmental proceedings on ground of pendency of criminal case.”
Finding it “both desirable and advisable to hold departmental enquiry and prosecute the criminal trial simultaneously,” the Court dismissed the writ petition.
The Court has directed that the enquiry “shall be completed within a period of three months” and ordered the petitioner “to cooperate in the enquiry proceedings.”
