2026:JHHC:15301 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 494 of 2025 ….….. Sudhansu Kumar Sharma, aged about 52 years, son of Late Indradeo Singh, resident of Flat No.703, Sector-1, Block-10, Khelgaon Housing Complex, P.O. Kokar, P.S.-Khelgaon, District -Ranchi. …. Petitioners VERSUS 1. Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman cum Managing Director, having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O. GPO, P.S. Kotwali, District- Ranchi. 2. Chairman cum Managing Director, Central Coalfields Limited, having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O. GPO, P.S. Kotwali, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. ..... Respondent(s) with ….….. W.P.(S) No. 4542 of 2025 ….….. Amugotu Satish Naik, aged about- 39 years, son of A Chandra Rao, resident of Flat No. 103, Sharda Apartment, near Hatma School, P.O. Ranchi University and P.S- Gonda, Kanke Road, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand). …. Petitioners VERSUS 1. The Coal India Limited through its Chairman having its office at Coal Bhawan Premise No.4, New Town, Rajarhat, P.O. Rajarhat, P.S. Rajarhat, District Kolkata (West Bengal). 2. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Central Coalfields Limited having its office at Central Coalfields Limited Office of the Chairman- cum-Managing Director Darbhanga House, Kutchery Road, Ranchi (Jharkhand). 3. The General Manager, Amrapali Chandragupta Area, P.0&P.S chatra Central Coalfields Limited, Tandwa, District Chatra (Jharkhand). ..... Respondent(s) ….….. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ….… For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kalyan Roy, Advocate Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate Mr. Afaque Rashidi, Advocate Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Aalok Kumar, Advocate Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate ….….. C.A.V. ON: 30/04/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:15/05/2026 1. Heard Ld. Counsel for the parties. 2026:JHHC:15301 2 2. By way of the captioned petitions, two CCL executives previously working at the Amrapali-Chandragupta Area have sought stay of departmental separately initiated by the Respondents against them for misconduct and non-fulfilment of duties and responsibilities under various provisions of the CIL Executives’ Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules, 2021 (“the CDA Rules”), mainly on the ground that the charges against the charged employees in the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are exactly same and similar. 3. While the departmental proceedings are being conducted separately, the charge laid against the two executives relates to similar allegations of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification in lieu of approval for lifting of coal at the aforesaid Area while the two officers were respectively posted as Area Sales Manager (A.S. Naik) and Dispatch Officer (S.K. Sharma). 4. Pertinently, the respective articles of charge framed against the two executives pertain to violations of the same provisions of the CDA Rules.1 5. As stated hereinabove, the captioned petitions have been preferred on the strength of the claim that the subject-matter of the departmental proceedings is the same as that of Regular CBI Case No. 03 (A)of 2024, wherein the Petitioners have been arrayed as accused and which is pending adjudication before the Court of Addl. Judicial 1 Memorandum of Charge against S.K. Sharma bearing No. CCL/VIG/RDA- 14/24/2024/1753 dated 04.12.2024 available at Annexure-3 of WPS 494/2025 @ Pg. 70-77 whereas Memorandum of Charge bearing No. CCL/VIG/RDA-14/24/2025/359 dated 15.05.2025 against S.K. Naik available at Annexure-9 of WPS No. 4542/2025 @ Pg. 125-132. 2026:JHHC:15301 3 Commissioner-I-cum-Special Judge (CBI). The said CBI Case arises out of FIR registered by the ACB, CBI bearing No. RC 04(A)/2024-R dated 02.04.2024 for the alleged commission of the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, whereupon charge-sheets were filed on 01.06.2024 and 16.10.2024. 6. For ease of reference, the allegations against the Petitioners in the aforesaid criminal case are set out as under. During the year 2024, S.K. Sharma, Senior Manager (Mining)/Dispatch Officer, Amrapali Project, CCL, Tandwa, and A.S. Naik, Area Sales Manager, Amrapali- Chandragupta Area, CCL, Tandwa, while posted in their respective capacities at the Amrapali-Chandragupta Area, CCL, allegedly entered into a criminal conspiracy with each other and with one Jitan Ganjhu, Clerk Grade-II, G.M. Unit, who was also posted in the office of the Area Sales Manager, Amrapali-Chandragupta Area, CCL, Tandwa. In furtherance of the said conspiracy, they are alleged to have demanded a sum of Rs. 91,000/- (Rupees Ninety-One Thousand Only) from the complainant, Shri Krishna Kumar, S/o Mohan Saw, R/o Village Bukru, Post-Dhangada, District Chatra, Jharkhand, as a motive or reward for coal lifted by him against two Delivery Orders viz. D.O. No. 1002 and D.O. No. 1003 (for quantities of 3,798 + 3,798 Metric Tonnes) of M/s Adhunik Power and Natural Resources Ltd., from Amrapali Project, CCL, Tandwa, Chatra. Apprehending serious adverse consequences to his future business prospects relating to coal lifting on account of the aforesaid demand of illegal gratification by 2026:JHHC:15301 4 the Petitioners, the complainant in the CBI case, viz. Shri Krishna Kumar, lodged a written complaint before the CBI, ACB, Ranchi, on 13.04.2024, seeking appropriate legal action. 7. Upon verification of the aforesaid complaint, the CBI, ACB, Ranchi, registered FIR No. RC 04(A)/2024-R dated 02.04.2024 for the alleged commission of an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act, 1988. [Ref. Annex. E of C.A. dt. 05.01.2026 in W.P.(S) No. 4542 of 2025] Thereafter, on 02.04.2024 and 03.04.2024, a trap was laid by CBI officials along with two independent witnesses at the office of the General Manager, Amrapali-Chandragupta Area, Tandwa, which continued till 04.04.2024. The aforesaid complainant could arrange only Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) out of the total demanded amount of Rs. 91,000/-. During the course of the trap proceedings, the complainant visited the office of the Petitioners carrying a voice recorder, and after certain conversation with the Petitioners, they called Jitan Ganjhu to their office and instructed him to receive the bribe amount. Acting on the said instructions, Jitan Ganjhu accepted the illegal gratification of Rs. 50,000/- from the complainant. Thereafter, upon a pre-arranged signal given by the complainant to the trap team, S.K. Sharma and Jitan Ganjhu were arrested red-handed by the CBI team for demanding and accepting illegal gratification. However, A.S. Naik, upon observing the arrest of Jitan Ganjhu, fled from the spot without any information or sanctioned leave, switched off his mobile phone, became untraceable, 2026:JHHC:15301 5 and reported to the office only on 05.06.2024 that is, after a period of approximately two months from the date of the trap/arrest, i.e., 03.04.2024 which conduct is indicative of his conscious involvement in the criminal conspiracy and the acceptance of the bribe amount through Jitan Ganjhu. [Ref. Annex. 5 of W.P.(S) No. 4542 of 2025] 8. As noted above, on 01.06.2024, the CBI, ACB, Ranchi, submitted a main Chargesheet against S.K. Sharma and Jitan Ganjhu. [Ref. Annex. 5 of W.P.(S) No. 4542 of 2025]. Subsequently, on 16.10.2024, the CBI, ACB, Ranchi, submitted a Supplementary Chargesheet. [Ref. Annex. 5 of W.P.(S) No. 4542 of 2025]. Pertinently, A.S. Naik has been arrayed as an accused in the said Supplementary Chargesheet dated 16.10.2024.2 9. On 04.12.2024, the Disciplinary Authority qua the two executives, issued a Memorandum of Charge bearing No. CCL/VIG/RDA-14/24/2024/1753 dated 04.12.2024 to S.K. Sharma under Rule 30 of the CDA Rules, 2021. [Ref. Annex. 3 of W.P.(S) No. 494 of 2025]. Thereafter, on 15.05.2025, the Disciplinary Authority issued a Memorandum of Charge bearing No. CCL/VIG/RDA- 14/24/2025/359 dated 15.05.2025 to A.S. Naik. [Ref. Annex. 9 of W.P.(S) No. 4542 of 2025]. In response to the aforesaid Memorandum of Charge, A.S. Naik submitted his Written Statement of Defense on 2 On 16.08.2024, the competent authority granted sanction for prosecution of S.K. Sharma. [Ref. Annex. D @ Pg. 29-33 of C.A. dt. 16.06.2025 in W.P.(S) No. 494 of 2025] Thereafter, on 24.12.2024, prosecution sanction was granted against A.S. Naik. [Ref. Annex. F @ Pg. 77-79 of C.A. dt. 05.01.2026 in W.P.(S) No. 4542 of 2025] Thereafter, on 24.12.2024, the Chairman- cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited, granted the Sanction Order for prosecution of A.S. Naik in FIR No. RC 04(A)/2024-R dated 02.04.2024. [Ref. Annex. F @ Pg. 77-79 of C.A. dt. 05.01.2026 in W.P.(S) No. 4542 of 2025 2026:JHHC:15301 6 19.08.2025 [Ref. Annex. O of S.C.A. dt. 20.03.2026 in W.P.(S) No. 4542 of 2025]. 10. From record, it is evident that in the case of S.K. Sharma, departmental proceedings were initiated on 04.12.2024 and continued till the passing of order of ad-interim stay dated 13.06.2025 by this Court, which was granted solely on account of non-filing of the Counter Affidavit by such date. The departmental inquiry against A.S. Naik, initiated on 19.09.2025, concluded on 28.03.2026, spanning fourteen sittings [Ref. Annex. P of S.C.A. dt. 20.03.2026 & Annex. R of S.C.A. dt. 13.04.2026 in W.P.(S) No. 4542 of 2025]. 11. The record of the fourteenth sitting of the departmental inquiry reflects that A.S. Naik, Charged Officer, submitted his Written Statement of Defense comprising nine pages, which was duly taken on record in following manner i.e.“…consequent upon conclusion of the Management’s case in the eleventh sitting held on 27.02.2026 I most respectfully submit my 'Statement of defense’ which is as under…..” [@ Pg. 12, last line of Supp. C.A. dt. 13.04.2026 to Page 17 thereof in W.P.(S) No. 4542 of 2025]. 12. Thereafter, on 15.04.2026, the Presenting Officer submitted the Management brief, and on 04.05.2026, A.S. Naik submitted his Defense brief. Only the Inquiry Report remains awaited in this case. 13. It is thus evident that insofar as the case of the Petitioner in WP(S) No. 4542/2025 is concerned, the entire defense of the charge- sheeted officer has already been disclosed. 2026:JHHC:15301 7 14. It bears relevance that both Petitioners have sought repeated adjournments in Regular Case No. 03 of 2024, pending before the Ld. Special Judge, CBI-I-cum-PMLA, Ranchi, in an apparent attempt to delay the criminal proceedings. Adjournments were sought by the Petitioners on 26.11.2025, 03.12.2025, 18.12.2025, 06.02.2026, and 13.03.2026. [Ref. Annex. Q of S.C.A. dt. 20.03.2026 in W.P.(S) No. 4542 of 2025]. 15. The Regular Case No. 03 of 2024 which was instituted before the Ld. Special Judge, CBI-I-cum-PMLA, Ranchi; after a period of over two years from the institution of the said case, on 06.04.2026, the Ld. Special Judge framed charges against both Petitioners for the commission of offences under Section 7 of the Act, 1988 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The matter is presently at the stage of examination of Prosecution Witnesses, with the next date fixed as 19.05.2026. 16. Thus, it can be inferred that the trial is likely to take several more years, inasmuch as, there are more than 20 witnesses cited in the main Chargesheet dated 01.06.2024 [@ Pg. 86 of W.P.(S) No. 4542 of 2025] and the Supplementary Chargesheet dated 16.10.2024 [@ Pg. 101 of W.P.(S) No. 4542 of 2025], and none of the said witnesses has been examined as on the date. 17. On account of the delay in the conclusion of criminal proceedings, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan vs. B.K. Meena, (1996) 6 SCC 417, has categorically emphasized that it 2026:JHHC:15301 8 is not in the interest of administration to permit such persons to continue in office for indefinite periods while awaiting the outcome of criminal proceedings, as such an approach would serve only the interests of the guilty and dishonest, and not that of public administration. The relevant paras of the judgment read as follows: “14. ……. It must be remembered that interests of administration demand that undesirable elements are thrown out and any charge of misdemeanour is enquired into promptly. The disciplinary proceedings are meant not really to punish the guilty but to keep the administrative machinery unsullied by getting rid of bad elements. The interest of the delinquent officer also lies in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. If he is not guilty of the charges, his honour should be vindicated at the earliest possible moment and if he is guilty, he should be dealt with promptly according to law. It is not also in the interest of administration that persons accused of serious misdemeanour should be continued in office indefinitely, i.e., for long periods awaiting the result of criminal proceedings. It is not in the interest of administration. It only serves the interest of the guilty and dishonest. While it is not possible to enumerate the various factors, for and against the stay of disciplinary proceedings, we found it necessary to emphasise some of the important considerations in view of the fact that very often the disciplinary proceedings are being stayed for long periods pending criminal proceedings. Stay of disciplinary proceedings cannot be, and should not be, a matter of course. All the relevant factors, for and against, should be weighed and a decision taken keeping in view the various principles laid down in the decisions referred to above. Emphasis Supplied 18. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. v. Girish V., (2014) 3 SCC 636, has held that delay in the prosecution of a criminal offence against the charge-sheeted employee is one of the most important considerations in determining whether the departmental proceedings ought to be stayed. The relevant paras of the judgment read as follows: “16. Suffice it to say that while there is no legal bar to the holding of the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal trial simultaneously, stay of disciplinary proceedings may be an advisable course in cases where the criminal charge against the employee is grave and continuance of the disciplinary proceedings is likely to prejudice their defence before the criminal court. Gravity of the charge is, however, not by itself enough to determine the question unless the charge involves complicated question of law and fact. The court examining the question must also keep in mind that criminal trials get prolonged indefinitely especially where the number of accused arraigned for trial is large as is the case at hand and so are the number of witnesses cited by the prosecution. The court, therefore, has to 2026:JHHC:15301 9 draw a balance between the need for a fair trial to the accused on the one hand and the competing demand for an expeditious conclusion of the ongoing disciplinary proceedings on the other. An early conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings has itself been seen by this Court to be in the interest of the employees.” Emphasis Supplied 19. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., (1999) 3 SCC 679, while dealing with the issue of simultaneous continuation of departmental proceedings vis-à-vis criminal proceedings, and after referring to various earlier decisions, held that departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously, as there is no legal bar to their being conducted concurrently; and that the departmental proceedings can be kept in abeyance during the pendency of the criminal case only if the offence is of a grave nature and involves complicated questions of fact and law. The relevant paras of the judgment read as follows: “22. The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are: (i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. (ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. (iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge-sheet. (iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. (v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not 2026:JHHC:15301 10 guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest.” Emphasis Supplied From record, it appears that in the instant case, the Petitioners have neither demonstrated any exceptional circumstances; nor shown that the continuation of the departmental proceedings would cause grave prejudice to them in the criminal proceedings, particularly given that the present case is one of trap, wherein the accused were apprehended red-handed. 20. 20. In the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs. T. Srinivas, reported in (2004) 7 SCC 442, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with facts materially similar to those of the instant case, wherein, an employee working as a Clerk was arrested red-handed by the CBI following the laying of a trap, and was thereafter charged for offences punishable under Section 7 read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, 1988. During the pendency of the said criminal case, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the said employee. The Central Administrative Tribunal stayed the disciplinary proceedings till the disposal of the criminal trial, and the said order was upheld by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. In appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the order granting stay of the departmental proceedings was set aside, with the Court reiterating the principles laid down in State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena (supra) and Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra) The relevant paras of the judgment read as follows: “10. From the above, it is clear that the advisability, desirability or propriety, as the case may be, in regard to a departmental enquiry has to be determined in each case taking into consideration all facts and circumstances of the 2026:JHHC:15301 11 case. This judgment also lays down that the stay of departmental proceedings cannot be and should not be a matter of course. 11. In the instant case, from the order of the Tribunal as also from the impugned order of the High Court, we do not find that the two forums below have considered the special facts of this case which persuaded them to stay the departmental proceedings. On the contrary, a reading of the two impugned orders indicates that both the Tribunal and the High Court proceeded as if a departmental enquiry had to be stayed in every case where a criminal trial in regard to the same misconduct is pending. Neither the Tribunal nor the High Court did take into consideration the seriousness of the charge which pertains to acceptance of illegal gratification and the desirability of continuing the respondent in service in spite of such serious charges levelled against him. This Court in the said case of State of Rajasthan [(1996) 6 SCC 417 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1455] has further observed that the approach and the objective in the criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings is altogether distinct and different. It held that 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, as the case may be, whereas in the criminal proceedings the question is whether the offences registered against him are established and, if established, what sentence should be imposed upon him. The Court in the above case further noted that the standard of proof, the mode of enquiry and the rules governing the enquiry and trial in both the cases are distinct and different. On that basis, in the case of State of Rajasthan [(1996) 6 SCC 417 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1455] the facts which seem to be almost similar to the facts of this case, held that the Tribunal fell in error in staying the disciplinary proceedings”. Emphasis Supplied 21. Similarly, this Court in Om Prakash Prasad vs. Central Coalfields Limited, 2016 SCC OnLine Jhar 2178, dealing with a case involving materially similar facts, also a trap case, wherein the Petitioner therein was apprehended red-handed with the tainted money, dismissed the Writ Petition seeking a stay of departmental proceedings pending criminal trial. The relevant portion of the judgment read as follows: “14. After going through the documents, I find that the allegation made in the criminal case and the memorandum of charge in the departmental proceeding are same and similar. It has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the C.C.L. that the two charges leveled against the petitioner i.e. in the criminal proceeding and, charge in the departmental proceeding are similar. ****** 21. Further, from the judgments referred by the parties I find that there is no hard and fast rule to stay departmental proceeding, on initiation or during pendency, of the criminal proceeding. In fact the arguments of the petitioner that in the case of trap there is a complicated question of facts and law, and thus the departmental proceeding has to be stayed, in the interest of justice also cannot be accepted. As referred earlier, facts of the 2026:JHHC:15301 12 case in hand is more or less similar to the facts, dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. T. Srinivas (supra), as referred to above. 22. This instant case arose a trap, where the delinquent has been caught red- handed. The facts are not complicated which warrants stay of the departmental proceeding. As it is well settled that the nature of evidence to prove guilt in departmental proceeding is different than that of the criminal trial. To bring home the charges in the criminal case one has to prove the same beyond all reasonable doubt, but so far as in the departmental proceeding, on the basis of preponderance of probability a delinquent can be punished. Notwithstanding the fact that the charges leveled against the petitioner, both in the criminal proceedings and departmental proceeding are same and similar, but by committing such offence, the petitioner failed to maintain absolute integrity, and by allegedly committing the said offence, the petitioner, had some what, failed to maintain integrity, devotion to his duty and also acted in a manner which is the prejudiced of the image of the company. Such act and omission on part of the petitioner contravenes the provision of Conduct, Discipline and Appeal rules of the company which amounts to misconduct. 23. In view of what has been held above, I am of the view that continuance of the departmental proceeding cannot be stayed merely because a criminal case of similar nature is pending against the petitioner. 24. In the facts and circumstances of this case, especially relying upon the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. T. Srinivas (supra), whose facts is similar to that of the case in hand, I do not find it proper to stay the departmental proceeding till disposal of the criminal case. Emphasis Supplied 22. Further, the Division Bench of this Court in Prabir Kumar Roy vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine Jhar 1370, was confronted with a situation wherein the Appellant therein challenged an order of the Single Judge refusing to stay departmental proceedings notwithstanding the pendency of a criminal case arising out of a similar set of charges. The Division Bench upheld the order of the Learned Single Judge, reiterating the principles laid down in State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena (supra), Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. (supra), and Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. v. Girish V. (supra). [Refer Para-16 to 19 and 30 of the said judgment] 23. Further, this Court in Naresh Nishad vs. Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Anr., WP (S) No. 3192 of 2019, dealt with a case wherein the Petitioner therein had sought quashing of departmental 2026:JHHC:15301 13 proceedings initiated against him on the same set of allegations for which a criminal proceeding was already pending. This Court permitted the Respondents therein to proceed with the respective departmental proceedings strictly in accordance with law The relevant portion of the judgment of the Learned Single Judge reads as follows: “23. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, this Court holds that preventing the Respondent from passing the final order in the backdrop of the delay in Criminal Case is not in the interest of justice, inasmuch as, in one of the Writ applications being WPS no. 595/2015, the Petitioner has already retired. 24. It goes without saying, that the Respondents shall proceed in the respective departmental proceedings strictly in accordance with law and following principles of natural justice and shall not be in hurry to close the proceedings; except in cases where the delinquent is going to retire soon. 25. With the aforesaid observations and directions, all Writ applications stand disposed of. Pending I.As., if any, also stands closed. Emphasis Supplied 24. The aforesaid order of the Learned Single Judge in Naresh Nishad v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Anr. (supra) was subsequently affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Sanjay Nishad vs. Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Anr., [L.P.A. No. 462 of 2025]; placing reliance upon Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. (supra) and Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. v. Girish V. (supra), and observing that departmental proceedings cannot be kept in abeyance merely on the ground that the criminal proceedings have not reached their logical conclusion, and that preventing the Respondents therein from finalizing the departmental proceedings would not be proper, as the charge is serious and relates to the very discharge of official duties. The Division Bench further emphasized that while criminal prosecution for an offence is launched for the violation of the duty that the offender owes to society, a departmental 2026:JHHC:15301 14 enquiry is aimed at maintaining discipline and efficiency in service. [Refer- paragraphs 52 to 60 of the said judgment]. 25. In the present se of cases, the Petitioners have sought stay of the departmental proceedings initiated vide the aforementioned Memoranda of Charge dated 04.12.2024 and 15.05.2025, solely on the ground that Regular Case No. 03 of 2024 is pending against them before the Ld. Special Judge, CBI-I-cum-PMLA, Ranchi, for the commission of offences punishable under Section 7 of the Act, 1988 read with Section 120B of the IPC. However, a perusal of the Memoranda of Charge issued to the Petitioners would demonstrate that the departmental proceedings have been initiated in accordance with the Coal India Executives’ Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as “CDA Rules, 2021”) and the administrative instructions and vigilance guidelines issued by the competent authorities [Ref. Annex. A - D of the Counter Affidavit in W.P.(S) No. 4542 of 2025], and are concerned with the Petitioners’ misconduct in demanding and accepting illegal gratification in the course of their official duties. 26. The mere pendency of a criminal case, which is being independently adjudicated, cannot operate as a ground to stay or stall the departmental proceedings, since there is no bar in law to the initiation or continuation of simultaneous criminal and departmental proceedings arising out of the same set of allegations, inasmuch as, 2026:JHHC:15301 15 the nature, object, scope, and procedure governing the two proceedings are entirely distinct and independent. 27. While a criminal prosecution aims at determining criminal culpability and imposing penal consequences in accordance with law; departmental proceedings are intended to examine conduct-related issues pertaining to a public servant and to ensure the maintenance of discipline and integrity in public service. 28. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. Umesh, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 563, has emphasized that the principles governing a disciplinary enquiry are entirely distinct from those applicable to a criminal trial. While a criminal prosecution requires the prosecution to establish the ingredients of an offence beyond reasonable doubt, a disciplinary proceeding is intended solely to examine allegations of misconduct by an employee, constituting a breach of the service rules governing the terms and conditions of employment. 29. Accordingly, the pendency of a criminal prosecution does not operate as a bar to the initiation or continuation of departmental proceedings, which serve the broader interest of maintaining the integrity and efficiency of the administrative machinery. The relevant paras of the judgment read as follows: “16. The principles which govern a disciplinary enquiry are distinct from those which apply to a criminal trial. In a prosecution for an offence punishable under the criminal law, the burden lies on the prosecution to establish the ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is entitled to a presumption of innocence. The purpose of a disciplinary proceeding by an employer is to enquire into an allegation of misconduct by an employee which results in a violation of the service rules governing the relationship of employment. Unlike a criminal prosecution 2026:JHHC:15301 16 where the charge has to be established beyond reasonable doubt, in a disciplinary proceeding, a charge of misconduct has to be established on a preponderance of probabilities. The rules of evidence which apply to a criminal trial are distinct from those which govern a disciplinary enquiry. The acquittal of the accused in a criminal case does not debar the employer from proceeding in the exercise of disciplinary jurisdiction. Emphasis Supplied 30. As a matter of fact, the charge in the departmental proceedings is of moral turpitude, while the criminal proceeding pertained to the acceptance of illegal gratification and accordingly it can be safely inferred that the charges levelled against the Appellant in both proceedings were quite distinct from each other. 31. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions, both these writ applications preferred by the petitioners herein are wholly misconceived, devoid of any merit and as such are liable to be dismissed. 32. Consequently, both these writ application stands dismissed. Pending IAs, if any, are closed. No Cost. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Dated:15/05/2026 Amardeep/ A.F.R Uploaded on 20.05.2026