Sayar Singh S/O Shri Hanuman Singh Shekhawat vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously. While acknowledging the principle established in Capt. M. Paul Anthony and Stanzen that departmental proceedings may be stayed if they are based on identical facts and the criminal charge is grave and involves complicated questions of law and fact, the Court emphasized that this principle cannot be applied in isolation. Due regard must be given to the fact that departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. In the present case, the Court noted that although the challan was presented in December 2018, charges had not yet been framed in the criminal proceedings. Conversely, the departmental proceedings were near completion, with only one witness remaining. Therefore, the Court found that staying the departmental proceedings would lead to undue delay. The Tribunal was deemed to have rightly declined to stay the departmental proceedings. No grounds for interference were found.

Facts

The petitioner, Sayar Singh, an Inspector in the CGST Commissionerate, Alwar, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 29.05.2020 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jaipur. The CAT had dismissed the petitioner's original application. The petitioner was facing departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings. An FIR was registered against him on 24.10.2018 for allegedly demanding illegal gratification from Kanhaiya Sweets and Snacks and Kanhaiya Industries. A challan was presented in the criminal court on 06.12.2018, but charges had not yet been framed. The departmental proceedings were nearing conclusion, with only one witness remaining to be examined. The petitioner contended that the departmental proceedings should be stayed until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings, as the charges were identical.

Key Issues

1. Whether the departmental proceedings against the petitioner should be stayed pending the conclusion of the criminal proceedings, considering the identical nature of the charges and the pendency of the criminal case, as per the principles laid down in Capt. M. Paul Anthony and Stanzen? The petitioner argued that the departmental proceedings ought to be stayed because the charges in both the departmental and criminal proceedings were identical. He contended that the criminal proceedings were still pending, with charges yet to be framed, and therefore, the departmental proceedings should be stayed until the conclusion of the criminal trial. The respondents (Union of India and Principal Commissioner, CGST) argued that the criminal proceedings were still in the preliminary stage, with charges yet to be framed, while the departmental proceedings were almost complete. They submitted that there was no reason to delay the departmental proceedings, especially given the serious nature of the allegations against the petitioner.