Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010127332025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3299/2025 MANOJ KUMAR S/O. LATE UMA SHANKAR PRASAD, R/O. 3A, III BLOCK, GYAN KANIKA APARTMENT, BASISTAPUR BYE LANE NO. 3, BELTOLA, GUWAHATI 781028. VERSUS NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND 2 OTHERS MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, GOVT. OF INDIA, G-5 AND 6, SECTOR 10, DWARKA, NEW DELHI- 110075, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2:THE MEMBER (ADM)-CUM-DESCIPLINARY AUTHORITY NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS GOVT. OF INDIA G-5 AND 6 SECTOR 10 DWARKA NEW DELHI 110075. 3:THE GENERAL MANAGER (HR/ADM)-II NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS GOVT. OF INDIA G-5 AND 6 SECTOR 10 DWARKA NEW DELHI 110075 For petitioner/appellant(s) : Mr. K. N. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate Mr. R.M. Deka, Advocate For respondent(s) : Mrs. R. Borah, Advocate Page No.# 2/5 – BEFORE – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA 24.07.2025 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. R. Borah, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioner had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Guwahati Bench, seeking quashing of the Memorandum of Charges, dated 25.06.2024, served on him and all consequential orders on the ground that the charges framed against him in the departmental proceeding were exactly similar to the criminal charges in the FIR. Such a prayer of the petitioner was rejected by the CAT, against which the petitioner has approached this Court. The petitioner was arrested for demanding and accepting bribe for passing bills and releasing bank guarantee in respect of the work awarded to the firm, namely, G.R. Infra Projects Ltd. The petitioner was charge-sheeted and was also proceeded against departmentally and was served a Memorandum of Charge under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 for initiating major penalty proceeding, containing three Articles of Charges, which primarily revolved around the petitioner having demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 6 Lakhs from the contractor for passing of bills and releasing bank guarantee of Rs. 2.58 Crores. The contention of the petitioner before the CAT was that since the departmental proceeding and the criminal case stemmed from the same event of the petitioner having demanded and accepted a bribe amount while in service, Page No.# 3/5 both the proceeding could not have been continued simultaneously. The CAT, after having gone through the entire records, concluded that the charges framed against the petitioner in the departmental proceeding and the criminal proceeding are different. The charges framed against the petitioner in the departmental proceeding pertain to misconduct committed by him constituting violation of the provisions of Rule 3(1)(i), 3(1) (iii), 3(1) (ii), 3(1) (vi), 3(1) (ix), 3(xviii), 3(1)(xix) and 3(1)(xxi) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The charges framed in the criminal proceeding relate to the offences under punishable under Section 120-B of the IPC read with Sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Apart from that, it was held by the CAT that quashing of the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner would be akin to killing a stillborn child. The proposition of law advanced on behalf of the petitioner before the CAT were repelled on the ground that the petitioner could only have prayed for suspension of the departmental proceeding for a while, perhaps till the completion of the criminal proceeding. The CAT also gave a direction for concluding the departmental proceeding expeditiously. However, from the pleadings, it appears that the criminal case against the petitioner has been stayed. In that view of the matter, it would not be appropriate to pass any order in favour of the petitioner for the reason that during the period the trial remains stayed by a judicial order, the departmental proceeding could be concluded. However, even otherwise, the charges, though stemming from the same act of the petitioner of demanding and accepting bribe money, were not exactly identical, because the criminal charge relates to conspiracy and also the offence of accepting money as bribe for doing an official work, whereas the charge framed in the Page No.# 4/5 departmental proceeding is with respect to misconduct. There would be a subtle distinction between the two and both cannot be treated to be synonymous under any count. In Captain M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Another, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 376, while dealing with the issue, the Supreme Court held that departmental proceeding can be proceeded with, or resumed even when such proceeding might have been stayed on account of the criminal proceeding not making any headway. In State of Rajasthan vs. B. K. Meena & Others, reported in (1996) 6 SCC 417, the Supreme Court has reiterated that there is no legal bar in both the proceeding going on simultaneously unless there is a likelihood of the employee suffering from prejudice in the criminal trial. What is significant is that this ground of likelihood of the employee suffering from prejudice in the criminal trial has been hedged by providing further that this may be done only in cases of grave nature, which must involve questions of fact and law. The Supreme Court, again in the case of Stanzen Toyotetsu India P. Ltd. vs. Girish V., reported in (2014) 3 SCC 636, took note of the development in the position of law in this regard and concluded that, at best, departmental proceeding could be stayed till conclusion of the trial. In the present case, the trial of the petitioner has already been stayed and no effort appears to have been made by the respondents to have the stay vacated. In any view of the matter, considering the fact that the charges framed against the petitioner in the criminal proceeding as well as the departmental proceeding, though may apparently look to be same but they have different connotation, and that the trial against the petitioner has been stayed, we do not find any reason whatsoever to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the CAT. Page No.# 5/5 Accordingly, finding no merit in this writ petition, we dismiss the petition. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant