Departmental enquiry may run with criminal prosecution unless exceptional prejudice and identical facts justify a stay.

Departmental proceedings may continue alongside a criminal prosecution arising from the same transaction because the two operate in distinct fields and apply different standards of proof. A stay is warranted only in exceptional cases where the facts are identical, the criminal charge is grave, and simultaneous enquiry would raise complicated factual and legal issues causing prejudice. In proceedings involving disproportionate assets, the employee bears special knowledge of the source of assets, and charges relating to non-filing or incorrect filing of property returns are not limited to the criminal case. On that basis, the departmental enquiry was not liable to be stayed.

---

---

Issues: Whether departmental proceedings were required to be stayed pending conclusion of the criminal case arising out of the same transaction.

Analysis: Departmental proceedings and criminal prosecution ordinarily operate in distinct fields and may proceed simultaneously. A stay is justified only in exceptional situations where both proceedings rest on identical facts, the criminal charge is of a grave nature, and complicated questions of fact and law make simultaneous enquiry likely to prejudice the employee. In cases under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the accused has special knowledge of the source of assets, and the departmental enquiry does not require the same standard of proof as a criminal trial. The charges relating to non-filing and incorrect filing of property returns were also not confined to the criminal prosecution.

Conclusion: The departmental proceedings were not liable to be stayed and could continue alongside the criminal trial.

---