The High Court of Jharkhand, in a significant ruling, has held that departmental proceedings against employees accused of serious misconduct like bribery can proceed concurrently with a criminal trial based on the same facts. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajesh Shankar dismissed a batch of Letters Patent Appeals, thereby upholding the decision of a single judge and allowing Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL) to continue with its internal disciplinary inquiries against three of its employees.
The court concluded that preventing the employer from finalizing departmental proceedings, especially when the charges are serious and relate to the integrity and discharge of duties of the employees, would not be proper.
Background of the Cases
The judgment was rendered in three connected appeals filed by Sanjay Nishad, Bhuteshwar Prasad Shaw, and Naresh Nishad, all employees of BCCL. Each appellant was facing separate criminal proceedings initiated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for allegedly demanding and accepting bribes.
- Sanjay Nishad, a Dispatch Clerk, was accused in an FIR dated January 29, 2018, of demanding a bribe of ₹5,000 for furnishing Provident Fund details of a former employee’s father. BCCL initiated a departmental proceeding against him on June 12, 2018, based on the same allegation of demanding and accepting a bribe.
- Bhuteshwar Prasad Shaw, a Clerk, was implicated in an FIR dated May 12, 2020, for allegedly demanding a gratification of ₹25,000 and agreeing to accept an installment of ₹10,000 for processing the retirement claims of a retired employee. Subsequently, BCCL served him a memo of charges on January 4, 2021, initiating a departmental inquiry on the same grounds.
- Naresh Nishad, an Assistant Revenue Inspector, faced a criminal case vide an FIR dated February 5, 2018, for allegedly demanding an illegal gratification of ₹5,000 to process a land acquisition claim. Following his arrest, BCCL issued a memorandum of charges on June 26-27, 2018, alleging grave misconduct for demanding and accepting a bribe.
In all three cases, the appellants had challenged the continuation of the departmental proceedings by filing writ petitions, which were dismissed by a learned single judge, leading to the present appeals.
Arguments of the Parties
The primary contention raised by the counsel for the appellants was that the departmental inquiry and the criminal proceedings could not continue simultaneously as they were based on an identical set of facts and evidence. They argued that allowing the departmental proceedings to continue would prejudice their defense in the criminal trial. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s judgments in Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited v. Girish v. and others and Captain M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Coalmines Limited to argue for a stay on the disciplinary proceedings until the conclusion of the criminal cases.
The respondents, BCCL, opposed this view, arguing for the continuation of the disciplinary action.
Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
The Division Bench conducted a thorough analysis of the legal position on simultaneous proceedings. The court observed that it is “unequivocally well-settled and not disputed that there is no legal bar to the conduct of disciplinary proceedings and a criminal trial simultaneously.”
The bench clarified the distinct purposes of the two proceedings, stating, “While criminal prosecution for an offence is launched for violation of the duty that the offender owes to the society, departmental enquiry is aimed at maintaining discipline and efficiency in service.”
Addressing the precedents cited by the appellants, the court noted that the decision in Captain M. Paul Anthony itself provides that departmental proceedings can be resumed if the criminal trial is unduly delayed. The court summarized the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in various cases, including:
- Karnataka State Road Transport v. M.G. Vithal Rao (2012) 1 SCC 442, which established that a stay on disciplinary proceedings is permissible only in cases involving “complex questions of facts and law” to avoid prejudice to the employee’s defense, but such a stay should not be used to delay the departmental action.
- Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Sarvesh Joshi (2005) 10 SCC 471, where it was held that each case must be considered on its own facts and a departmental inquiry would only be stayed if it would “seriously prejudice the delinquent in his defence at the trial in a criminal case.”
The High Court placed significant reliance on a recent Supreme Court judgment in Food Corporation of India v. Harish Prakash Hinunia (2025), which involved a similar trap case. In that case, the Supreme Court held that preventing the employer from initiating departmental proceedings would be improper when the charge is serious and relates to the employee’s discharge of duties. Quoting the Supreme Court, the bench reiterated: “…preventing the appellants from initiating the departmental proceeding would not be proper as the charge is serious and relates to the very discharge of the duties and functions of the respondent in the appellant-Corporation.”
The Decision
Applying this settled law to the facts at hand, the High Court concluded that the charges of demanding and accepting bribes against the appellants were of a serious nature and directly related to their integrity and the discharge of their functions at BCCL.
The court held, “Since the appellants herein are said to have been beneficiaries of bribe and for that criminal case has been instituted and departmental proceedings are on the verge of conclusion, we are of the considered view that preventing the respondents from finalizing the departmental proceedings would not be proper as the charge is serious and relates to the very discharge of the duties and functions of the appellant(s) in the respondent-Corporation.”
Consequently, the court found no merit in the appeals and dismissed them, allowing BCCL to proceed with and finalize the departmental inquiries against the employees. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
