The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar, in a judgment pronounced on November 14, 2025, has dismissed two writ petitions filed by a Border Security Force (BSF) Assistant Commandant, Akhand Prakash Shahi. The petitioner sought to stay departmental proceedings initiated against him for misconduct, pending the conclusion of a criminal trial for rape (Section 376 IPC) based on the same set of allegations.
Justice Sanjay Dhar ruled that simultaneous criminal and departmental proceedings can continue, finding that the officer’s defence would not be prejudiced as he had already disclosed it in various court filings and representations. The court also dismissed a separate challenge to the officer’s prolonged suspension, holding that the petitioner himself was responsible for the delay in the disciplinary enquiry by obtaining a stay.
Case Background
The case originates from an FIR (No.108/2022) registered against the petitioner, Akhand Prakash Shahi, at Police Station, Dwarika (North), New Delhi, for an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. At the time, the petitioner was posted as an Assistant Commandant at STC Airport, Humhama, Srinagar.
The complaint was lodged by a lady ASI (Min) of the BSF. According to the judgment, her complaint alleged that:
- On October 22, 2020, she had sent a message seeking marriage proposals from BSF personnel.
- The petitioner contacted her, expressed eagerness to marry, and they met at a hotel in Dwarika on December 28, 2020.
- The complainant alleged the petitioner “tricked her with his smooth talks and assured her that he will marry her,” following which he established sexual relations with her from December 28 to 30, 2020.
- This was allegedly repeated in February 2021 and March 2021, with the petitioner continuously assuring her of marriage, even claiming he would go to court to marry her against his brother’s wishes.
- In December 2021, the complainant allegedly discovered the petitioner had illegal relations with another woman from Meghalaya, whom he had purportedly married six years prior.
- The complaint further alleged that the petitioner, after denying this, got engaged to another girl. The complainant stated the petitioner had committed sexual intercourse with her on a “false promise of marriage.”
Following the FIR, an investigation was completed, a chargesheet was filed, and the trial is ongoing before the Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarika, New Delhi. The petitioner is currently on bail.
Concurrently, the BSF initiated departmental action. The petitioner was placed under suspension on April 24, 2023, under Rule 40A(1) of the BSF Rules. His suspension was subsequently confirmed and extended multiple times. The latest extension order, dated July 4, 2025 (extending suspension until January 7, 2026), was challenged in writ petition WP(C) No.1876/2025.
Separately, a Staff Court of Enquiry was ordered on October 28, 2023, under Rule 173 of the BSF Rules to investigate the allegations, which the BSF termed as “misconduct against a junior member of the Force.” The petitioner’s representation against this enquiry was rejected on November 7, 2023. This rejection and the initiation of the enquiry were challenged in writ petition WP(C) No.3128/2023.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner challenged the departmental proceedings, arguing that:
- The departmental and criminal proceedings cannot proceed simultaneously, as it would “seriously prejudice” his defence in the criminal case.
- The allegations were “false and frivolous,” and the right to marry is a “private and personal matter” with which the employer has no concern.
- The prolonged suspension was “a tool of harassment and punishment” and in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar, after hearing counsel for both parties, disposed of the two petitions with a common judgment.
On the “Private Matter” Argument: The court rejected the contention that the alleged act was purely personal. It observed, “If these allegations levelled against the petitioner are proved, the same would amount to offence of rape and it would also amount to misconduct as the person against whom the petitioner is alleged to have committed the offence of rape is also a member of the Force. Therefore, the consequences of the alleged act of the petitioner have contours of criminality as well as the contours of misconduct.” The court concluded, “Thus, the contention of the petitioner that his alleged act is a personal matter having nothing to do with his service, cannot be accepted.”
On Simultaneous Proceedings: The central issue was whether the departmental enquiry must await the criminal court’s verdict. Justice Dhar analyzed several Supreme Court judgments, including State of Rajasthan vs. B. K. Meena (1996) and Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. (1999).
The court affirmed the settled legal position that “there is no legal bar for both proceedings to go on simultaneously.” It noted that a stay on departmental proceedings is “desirable” only in specific cases, particularly if the charge is of a “grave nature” and involves “complicated questions of law and fact,” which might prejudice the employee’s defence.
Applying this test to the present case, the court held:
- Grave Nature: “It is also a fact that charge levelled against the petitioner is of a grave nature.”
- Complicated Questions: The court found the case did not involve complex questions. “The determination of veracity of this allegation… does not involve decision of a complicated question of fact or law.”
- Prejudice to Defence: The court concluded that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner. It gave a specific reason for this finding: “…the petitioner has already disclosed his defence not only in the petitions filed by him before this Court but also in his representations filed by him before the respondents. Even in his bail application filed before the criminal court, the petitioner has disclosed his defence. Therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner in case both the criminal case as well as departmental proceedings are allowed to proceed simultaneously.”
The judgment also cited Depot Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Mohd. Yousuf Miya (1997) to distinguish the two proceedings: “The criminal prosecution is launched for an offence… the offender owes to the society,” whereas “the departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service.”
On Prolonged Suspension: The court rejected the petitioner’s challenge to his suspension, finding that the petitioner himself was the cause of the delay in the disciplinary proceedings.
The court noted, “it was at the instance of the petitioner that the departmental proceedings came to a grinding halt.” The judgment records that the enquiry was initiated on October 28, 2023, but was stayed by the High Court on December 4, 2023, based on the petitioner’s own application.
“Thus, the petitioner cannot take advantage of his own actions by claiming that the respondents have perpetuated his agony by not completing the departmental proceedings,” the court ruled, calling the ground “without any substance.”
Conclusion
Finding no merit in either petition, the High Court dismissed them both. The judgment stated, “Interim direction(s), if any, shall stand vacated with immediate effect.” A related contempt petition, CCP(S) No.32/2024, was also disposed of as having merged with the final judgment.
