Excelsior Correspondent
Srinagar, Nov 17: The High Court has held the departmental proceedings against delinquent offices cannot be stopped merely pendency of criminal case on the same allegations.
Declining to extend stay on the departmental proceedings against a BSF officer challenging his suspension and departmental proceedings against him on the ground that a criminal case is pending before the court of law and departmental proceedings cannot be held till final outcome of the criminal case, Justice Sanjay Dhar held that departmental proceedings cannot be halted merely because a criminal case is pending. The High Court clarified that a stay is justified only where the criminal case is of a grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law, and where continuation of disciplinary action would prejudice the employee’s defence.
“It cannot be stated that the departmental proceedings are required to be kept in abeyance till the decision of the criminal case unless it is shown that criminal case against the petitioner, besides being of a grave nature, involves complicated question of law and fact and that continuance of departmental proceedings against the petitioner would prejudice his defence”, the court recorded.
The delinquent officer, serving as Assistant Commandant in the BSF, was booked in a criminal case under Section 376 IPC pursuant to a complaint lodged by a woman ASI of the Force. A charge-sheet was filed, and the criminal trial is underway before the competent court in New Delhi.
His higher authorities also initiated departmental proceedings against him based on a complaint submitted by the same ASI to the Force. A Staff Court of Enquiry was ordered to inquire into allegations of misconduct.
The departmental proceedings has been challenged by him and the suspension also by contending therein that the allegations constituted personal matters, that his defense in the criminal case would be prejudiced if departmental proceedings continued, and that his prolonged suspension was unjustified.
The Court turned down his plea and noted that a stay may be warranted only where the criminal charge is of a grave nature and involves complicated questions of fact and law, and where continuation of departmental proceedings is likely to prejudice the accused employee’s defense. However, the Court held that the allegation that the complainant was induced into sexual relations on a false promise of marriage did not involve complicated questions of law or fact.
The court observed that departmental proceedings are necessary to maintain discipline and efficiency in service and should not be unduly delayed. With regard to challenge his suspension, the Court noted that departmental proceedings were stayed due to an interim order obtained by the petitioner himself. It held that the petitioner could not claim prejudice or delay attributable to his own actions.
“No grounds were made out for staying the departmental proceedings or interfering with the suspension orders. Finding no merit in either of the writ petitions, dismissed accordingly. Interim directions vacated”, the court concluded.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
