Safiya Malik

The High Court of Gauhati Single Bench of Justice Kardak Ete has declined to stay departmental proceedings initiated against a Food Corporation of India (FCI) official who is simultaneously facing a criminal trial for alleged bribery. The Court held that there was no compelling reason to halt the departmental inquiry solely on the basis of the ongoing criminal prosecution.

Rejecting the petition seeking a stay on the basis that both proceedings arise from the same facts and charges, the Court concluded that disciplinary proceedings and criminal trials can continue concurrently when they are distinct in purpose and procedure. The Court further noted that the petitioner had already filed a detailed defence in the departmental proceedings, thus negating concerns of prejudice in the criminal case. It stated that the petitioner failed to establish that the criminal case involves complicated legal or factual issues warranting a stay of the disciplinary process.

Also Read: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict | Says ‘Last Seen Together Is A Weak Link’ And ‘Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof’ | Slams Lower Courts For Conviction Without Conclusive Evidence

Accordingly, the writ petition challenging the continuation of the disciplinary proceedings pursuant to the Memorandum of Charges dated 08.12.2023 was dismissed. The Court clarified that there was no legal bar on simultaneous proceedings and found no merit in the petitioner's plea.

The writ petition was filed by an official of the Food Corporation of India (FCI), who was serving as Manager (Accounts) at the Divisional Office, Tezpur, from 15.07.2022. The petitioner challenged a Memorandum dated 08.12.2023, issued by the Executive Director (NE), FCI, which proposed a departmental inquiry on charges of demanding illegal gratification.

The central allegation pertains to the petitioner allegedly demanding a bribe of Rs.1,30,000 from a private contractor, and being apprehended by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on 08.09.2023 while accepting Rs.20,000 from the complainant, Sri Pankaj Pawan Nath. The bribe was allegedly demanded for processing and clearing bills amounting to Rs.1,33,398 concerning the hiring of generator sets by the FCI.

The complaint was lodged with the CBI on 07.09.2023. Following this, a trap was laid, and the petitioner was arrested on 08.09.2023. He was subsequently suspended by FCI on 12.09.2023. On obtaining bail on 08.12.2023, the suspension was revoked, though disciplinary proceedings were initiated.

The petitioner contended that the departmental enquiry is based on the same allegations, witnesses, and documentary evidence as the criminal case. It was submitted that the Memorandum of Charges dated 08.12.2023 and the CBI Chargesheet No.06/2023 dated 04.11.2023 contain identical allegations.

The petitioner listed that witnesses 1 to 8 in the departmental charge memo correspond to various witnesses in the CBI chargesheet, suggesting duplication of proceedings. He argued that proceeding with the departmental inquiry would disclose his criminal trial defence, thus prejudicing his case.

It was further argued that the departmental and criminal proceedings are inseparable and the same evidence and witness testimony would be relied upon in both. Hence, conducting them in parallel would be unjust.

The petitioner relied upon the Supreme Court judgments in Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. vs. Its Workmen [AIR 1965 SC 155] and Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. [(1999) 3 SCC 679], submitting that departmental proceedings based on the same facts as a criminal case should be stayed if the criminal charge is of a grave nature.

The respondents, represented by the Standing Counsel for FCI, Mr. B.K. Singh, argued that the petitioner’s role was pivotal in processing bills and that the allegation tarnishes the image of FCI. They asserted that the criminal and departmental proceedings are independent and would be tried under separate procedures—the former under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the latter under FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971.

It was submitted that while the criminal case pertains to illegal gratification, the departmental charges include misconduct and bringing disrepute to the organisation, which are broader in scope.

The FCI counsel contended that departmental proceedings are quicker and in the interest of good administration, should not be delayed. The petitioner had already submitted a detailed written defence, thereby nullifying the concern of revealing his criminal trial strategy.

"The petitioner has already submitted his written statement of defense reputing the allegations leveled against him. Thus, it would be difficult to say that allowing the Departmental proceedings would prejudice and his defence would be adversely affected in pending criminal case."

"It is settled position of law that the approach and objective in the criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings are altogether distinct and different."

"In the disciplinary proceedings, the question is whether the respondent is guilty of such conduct as would merit his removal from service or a lesser punishment... whereas in the criminal proceedings the question is whether the offences registered against him... are established and if established, what sentence should be imposed."

"The standard of proof, the mode of enquiry and the rules governing the enquiry and trial in both the cases are entirely distinct and different."

"Staying of disciplinary proceedings pending criminal proceedings should not be a matter of course but a considered decision."

"The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service."

"It would therefore, be expedient that the departmental proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible."

"There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental enquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the charge in the criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated question of fact and law."

"In the present case, the charge is serious in nature... although the allegation in both the criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings are somewhat similar."

"The charges against the petitioners are not only of taking bribe but are also of misconduct and causing loss to the reputation of the FCI."

"There is no rule that the departmental enquiry has to be stayed in every case where a criminal trial in regard to the same misconduct is pending."

"The learned counsel for the petitioner has miserably failed to show that the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and same set of facts and the charge in the criminal case... is of a grave nature... except bald submissions without any material to support."

Also Read: No Loopholes In Cess Liability | Rajasthan HC Upholds Arbitration Award Reimbursing Compensation Cess On Coal Rejects | Other Taxes To Apply In Future Includes Compensation Cess Under GST Law

The Court issued the following final direction:

"The petitioner has failed to make out a case for stay of the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner pursuant to the Memorandum dated 08.12.2023 issued by the Executive Director (NE) Food Corporation of India, Zonal Office (NE), Guwahati. Thus, not inclined."

"In the result, writ petition stands dismissed being devoid of merit. No order as to cost(s)."

Accordingly, the departmental proceedings against the petitioner will continue irrespective of the ongoing criminal trial.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Ms. M. Kumari, Mr. B.U. Laskar, Mr. D. Nandi

For the Respondents: Mr. B.K. Singh, Standing Counsel, FCI

Case Title: Md. Abdul Latif vs. Food Corporation of India and Ors.

Neutral Citation: GAHC010094802024

Case Number: WP(C)/2521/2024

Bench: Justice Kardak Ete

[Read/Download order]