Departmental proceedings need not await criminal trial where service misconduct and penal allegations are distinct, the HC said.

Departmental proceedings are not automatically stayed because a criminal trial arises from the same allegations; disciplinary and criminal action operate in distinct spheres. The service inquiry concerned misconduct, integrity, and compliance with conduct rules, while the criminal case involved alleged offences under penal law. The HC also noted the prolonged pendency of the inquiry, the employee's earlier request for expeditious completion, and the settled principle that stay of disciplinary action is not granted as a matter of course. On these grounds, the request to stay the departmental proceedings was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether departmental proceedings ought to be stayed pending conclusion of the criminal trial arising out of the same set of allegations.

Analysis: The writ petition challenged the refusal to stay departmental proceedings initiated against a public servant facing criminal prosecution on corruption-related allegations. The Court noted that there is no inflexible rule requiring departmental proceedings to be stayed at the employee's instance. It held that disciplinary proceedings and criminal prosecution operate in distinct spheres, since the service charge concerned misconduct, lack of integrity, and failure to follow service conduct requirements, while the criminal case concerned alleged criminal misconduct under the penal law. The Court also considered the prolonged pendency of the inquiry, the petitioner's earlier request for expeditious conclusion of the same proceedings, and the principle that stay of disciplinary action is not to be granted as a matter of course.

Conclusion: The prayer for stay of the departmental proceedings was rejected, and the writ petition failed.

---