Departmental Proceedings Need Not Pause For Parallel Criminal Trial Unless Complex Questions Arise: J&K & Ladakh High Court Dismisses BSF Officer’s Challenge To Disciplinary Action
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar held that departmental proceedings need not be paused solely because a criminal case is underway on the same set of allegations. The Court clarified that such a halt is warranted only when the criminal trial raises serious and complex factual or legal issues whose parallel examination could impair the employee’s defence. In the present matter, involving allegations of sexual misconduct by a member of the Force against a colleague, the Court found no such complexity and concluded that both proceedings could continue independently. It also upheld the officer’s suspension, observing that delays in the disciplinary process resulted from the officer’s own challenge to the enquiry.
The matter concerns a Border Security Force officer against whom an FIR was registered in 2022 at Police Station Dwarika, New Delhi, for the offence of rape under Section 376 of the IPC. The complaint was filed by a woman colleague serving as an ASI (Min), who alleged that the officer established sexual relations with her on multiple occasions between 2020 and 2021 after assuring her that he intended to marry her. She stated that the officer continued to reassure her about marriage but later became engaged to another woman, leading her to allege that the promise of marriage was false from the outset.
According to the allegations, the officer contacted the complainant after she circulated a message indicating interest in marriage. They subsequently met at different hotels in New Delhi, where the complainant alleges that sexual relations took place based on assurances of marriage. She later claimed to have learned that the officer was involved with another woman and disputed his explanations, prompting her to approach the police.
Following registration of the FIR, investigation was conducted, and a chargesheet was filed before the criminal court. The officer was granted bail, and the criminal trial is ongoing. The complainant also submitted a written complaint to BSF authorities in 2022, prompting initiation of departmental proceedings under Rule 173 of the BSF Rules on allegations of misconduct.
The officer challenged these proceedings, arguing that the complaint was false, that the matter was personal, and that simultaneous conduct of disciplinary and criminal proceedings would prejudice his defence. He further submitted WhatsApp messages and representations asserting that the complainant had declined marriage and had later permitted him to marry someone else.
The Court recorded that “there is no legal or statutory bar for proceeding with both these proceedings simultaneously.” It noted that “if departmental proceedings and criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case.” It added that “the question whether the charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.”
The Court stated that “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 that “the determination of veracity of this allegation… does not involve decision of a complicated question of fact or law.” It further noted that the petitioner had already placed his defence on record in multiple proceedings, observing that “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 Court also stated that “the consequences of the alleged act of the petitioner have contours of criminality as well as the contours of misconduct,” and recorded that “the contention of the petitioner that his alleged act is a personal matter having nothing to do with his service, cannot be accepted.”
On suspension, the Court noted that “within one and a half months of the initiation of departmental proceedings… the same were stayed by this Court… on a petition filed by the petitioner.” It held that “the petitioner cannot take advantage of his own actions by claiming that the respondents have perpetuated his agony by not completing the departmental proceedings.” It concluded that “the ground urged by the petitioner is without any substance.”
The Court stated: “For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in these petitions. The same are dismissed accordingly. Interim direction(s), if any, shall stand vacated with immediate effect.”
“In view of the decision in the main writ petition(s), the order out of which instant contempt petition has arisen, has merged in the final judgment. Therefore, nothing further survives for consideration in this contempt petition. The same is, accordingly, disposed of.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. S. A. Qadri, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Vikas Malik, CGSC, with Ms. Sehar Mufti Ahad, Advocate
Case Title: Akhand Prakash Shahi v. Union of India & Anr.
Case Number: WP(C) No.1876/2025 c/w WP(C) No.3128/2023 and CCP(S) No.32/2024
Bench: Justice Sanjay Dhar
