https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303068 Disciplinary proceedings need not be stayed merely because a criminal trial arises from the same facts; stay is justified only where parallel departmental action would prejudice the employee's defence, especially in a case involving complicated issues. Here, prolonged delay in the criminal case meant the pendency of prosecution could not support an indefinite suspension of inquiry, so only a limited stay tied to completion of prosecution evidence was justified. Clause 4 of the settlement was read as enabling, not prohibitory, and it did not bar disciplinary action beyond a reasonable period. The employer was therefore entitled to revive and complete the disciplinary proceedings if the criminal trial was not concluded within the stipulated time. en-us Fri, 16 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Jul 2022 15:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303068 Disciplinary proceedings need not be stayed merely because a criminal trial arises from the same facts; stay is justified only where parallel departmental action would prejudice the employee's defence, especially in a case involving complicated issues. Here, prolonged delay in the criminal case meant the pendency of prosecution could not support an indefinite suspension of inquiry, so only a limited stay tied to completion of prosecution evidence was justified. Clause 4 of the settlement was read as enabling, not prohibitory, and it did not bar disciplinary action beyond a reasonable period. The employer was therefore entitled to revive and complete the disciplinary proceedings if the criminal trial was not concluded within the stipulated time. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 16 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303068