1 CWP-21659-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 122 CWP-21659-2026 Date of Decision: 21.07.2026 YUDHVIR SINGH ....Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Vineet Kumar Jakhar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rahul Dev Singh, Addl. AG Haryana. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR , J. (Oral) 1. This Civil Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the inquiry Report dated 25.11.2025 (Annexure P-10), being arbitrary, mala fide, perverse, and violative of the principles of natural justice, and for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to stay all consequential proceedings arising out of the impugned inquiry Report. In the alternative, the petitioner prays for a direction to the respondents to conduct a fresh inquiry after the culmination of the criminal PARUL VERMA 2026.08.01 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 CWP-21659-2026 trials arising out of FIR No. 39 dated 06.02.2023 and FIR No. 41 dated 07.02.2023. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that the petitioner was assaulted on 06.02.2023 by Kavita, Vijender, Principal Suresh Yadav and others, who also subjected him to caste-based abuses, whereafter FIR No.39 dated 06.02.2023 (Annexure P-1) came to be registered against the petitioner under the provisions of the IPC, the POCSO Act and the Information Technology Act, pursuant to which he was arrested on 07.02.2023. It is submitted that on the complaint lodged by the petitioner, FIR No.41 dated 07.02.2023 (Annexure P-3) was also registered against the aforesaid persons under the IPC and the SC/ST Act. 2.1. Learned counsel submits that the respondents initiated departmental proceedings vide Memorandum dated 27.07.2023 (Annexure P-4), however, the Internal Committee Report, which formed the very basis of the disciplinary proceedings, was never supplied to the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached this Court by filing CWP No.31566 of 2025, wherein notice of motion was issued on 28.10.2025. Despite the pendency of the said proceedings, the inquiry Officer issued notices fixing the inquiry for 14.11.2025 and 24.11.2025, but the said notices were served upon the petitioner only after the scheduled dates had already PARUL VERMA 2026.08.01 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 CWP-21659-2026 expired (Annexures P-11 and P-12), thereby depriving him of an effective opportunity to participate in the inquiry. 2.2. It is further contended that although the inquiry Officer was awarded that the petitioner was required to appear before the Trial Court on 24.11.2025 (Annexure P-14), he nevertheless proceeded ex parte and submitted the impugned inquiry Report dated 25.11.2025 (Annexure P-10) with undue haste and in a pre-determined manner. Learned counsel further submits that the findings recorded in the inquiry are based primarily upon the statements of Kavita and Principal Suresh Yadav, who are themselves accused in FIR No.41 of 2023 and are, therefore, highly interested witnesses. It is also submitted that an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. seeking summoning of Principal Suresh Yadav as an accused is pending before the competent Court (Annexure P-17), yet the said material fact has been completely ignored. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another, (1999) 3 SCC 679, as well as the judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Rubina Bano v. State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary and others, 2020 SCC OnLine Chh 1276, decided on 17.12.2020, to contend that where the departmental proceedings and the criminal case arise out of the same set of facts and involve common evidence, the departmental inquiry is liable to be kept in abeyance till the conclusion of the criminal trial. PARUL VERMA 2026.08.01 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 CWP-21659-2026 2.3. It is further contended that the inquiry was conducted by the inquiry Officer from his private residence, which itself raises serious doubts regarding the fairness and impartiality of the proceedings. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the impugned inquiry Report suffers from gross violation of the principles of natural justice, is tainted by mala fides and bias, ignores material facts, and has been concluded during the pendency of criminal proceedings arising out of the same set of allegations. Consequently, the impugned inquiry Report dated 25.11.2025 (Annexure P- 10) is liable to be set aside being arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law. 3. Notice of motion. 4. Mr. Rahul Dev Singh, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. He opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that it is a settled proposition of law that the strict rules of evidence embodied in the Indian Evidence Act are not applicable to departmental proceedings. The standard of proof in departmental proceedings is that of preponderance of probabilities, whereas in a criminal trial arising out of an FIR, the prosecution is required to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that the petitioner has raised disputed questions of fact and that FIR No.41 of 2023 (Annexure P-3) was lodged merely as a counterblast to FIR No.39 of 2023 (Annexure P-1), which had already been PARUL VERMA 2026.08.01 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 CWP-21659-2026 registered against the petitioner under the provisions of the IPC, the POCSO Act and the Information Technology Act. 4.1. It is further submitted that the victim in the present case is a minor and that the petitioner had already challenged the impugned inquiry Report dated 25.11.2025 (Annexure P-10) by filing CWP No.31566 of 2025, which was withdrawn on 08.12.2025. Consequently, the present writ petition is barred under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and is also hit by the principles of constructive res judicata, and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner neither sought any exemption nor requested an adjournment before the Inquiry Officer and, therefore, cannot now be permitted to contend that he was denied an opportunity of hearing. Rather, it is the petitioner who has failed to cooperate with the inquiry proceedings. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record with their able assistance, it transpires that FIR No.39 dated 06.02.2023, registered under Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Section 67A of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 and Sections 354-D and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station City Dadri, District Charki Dadri, was registered against the petitioner. Thereafter, on the complaint lodged by the petitioner, FIR No.41 dated 07.02.2023 came to be registered under PARUL VERMA 2026.08.01 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6 CWP-21659-2026 Sections 323, 324, 506 and 34 IPC and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, at the same Police Station against the complainant and other persons connected with FIR No.39 of 2023. It is not in dispute that the criminal trials arising out of both the aforesaid FIRs have since been clubbed. Meanwhile, the respondents initiated departmental proceedings against the petitioner vide Memorandum dated 27.07.2023 (Annexure P-4). Notices fixing the inquiry for 14.11.2025 and 24.11.2025 were issued by the Inquiry Officer. According to the petitioner, the said notices were served belatedly and, on 24.11.2025, he was required to remain present before the Trial Court, thereby depriving him of an effective opportunity to participate in the inquiry. The respondents, however, dispute the said contention by asserting that, apart from the notices issued in the ordinary course, communications regarding the inquiry proceedings were also sent to the petitioner through e-mail at yudhvirdahiya@gmail.com and ysdahiya.bhiwani@gmail.com, as is evident from page 182 of the paper book. Thus, the principal questions which arise for consideration are whether the departmental inquiry suffered from any violation of the principles of natural justice and whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is warranted merely because the criminal proceedings and the departmental proceedings arise out of the same transaction. PARUL VERMA 2026.08.01 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7 CWP-21659-2026 6. It is a well-established principle of service law that there is no absolute embargo on the simultaneous continuation of departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings. Both may proceed concurrently, albeit independently, as they operate in distinct fields and serve different purposes. A criminal prosecution is concerned with determining the criminal culpability of the accused for an offence under the penal law, whereas a departmental enquiry is intended to examine whether the conduct of the employee amounts to misconduct or a breach of the obligations arising under the applicable service rules, thereby warranting disciplinary action. The standards of proof, nature of evidence, and objectives governing the two proceedings are fundamentally different. Consequently, the mere pendency of a criminal case does not, by itself, justify the suspension of departmental proceedings. The crucial consideration is whether the continuation of the disciplinary enquiry is likely to cause serious prejudice to the delinquent employee in effectively defending himself in the criminal trial. Such a determination cannot be made in the abstract and must necessarily depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgement rendered by a two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Sarvesh Berry, 2005(1) SCT 179, wherein speaking through Justice Arijit Pasayat, the following was observed: PARUL VERMA 2026.08.01 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8 CWP-21659-2026 “8. It is fairly well-settled position in law that on basic principles proceedings in criminal case and departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously, except in some cases where departmental proceedings and criminal case are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common. It is in these cases, the Court has to decide, taking into account special features of the case, whether simultaneous continuance of both would be proper. 9. The purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution is two different and distinct aspects. The criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of a duty the offender owes to the society, or for breach of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. So crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. It would, therefore, be expedient that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible. It is not, therefore, desirable to lay down any guidelines as inflexible rules in which the departmental proceedings may or may not be stayed pending trial in criminal case against the delinquent officer. Each case requires to be considered in the backdrop of its own facts and circumstances. There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental enquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the charge in the criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law. Offence generally implies infringement of public duty, as distinguished from mere private rights punishable under criminal law. When trial for criminal offence is conducted it should be in accordance with proof of the offence as per the evidence defined under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 (in short the 'Evidence Act'). Converse is the case of departmental enquiry. The enquiry in a departmental proceedings relates to conduct or breach of duty of the delinquent officer to punish him for his misconduct defined under the relevant statutory rules or law. That the strict standard of proof or applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded is a settled legal position. Under these circumstances, what is required to be seen is whether the department enquiry would seriously prejudice the delinquent in his defence at the trial in a criminal case. It is always a question of fact PARUL VERMA 2026.08.01 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 9 CWP-21659-2026 to be considered in each case depending on its own facts and circumstances. 10. A three-judge Bench of this Court in Depot Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya and Ors., (1997(2) SCC 699) analysed the legal position in great detail on the above lines. 11. The aforesaid position was also noted in State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena, 1996(4) SCT 707 (SC) : (1996(6) SCC 417). 12. There can be no straight jacket formula as to in which case the departmental proceedings are to be stayed. There may be cases where the trial of the case gets prolonged by the dilatory method adopted by delinquent official. He cannot be permitted to, on one hand, prolong criminal case and at the same time contend that the departmental proceedings should be stayed on the ground that the criminal case is pending. 13. In Capt. M. Paul Anthony's case (supra) this Court indicated some of the fact- situations which would govern the question whether departmental proceedings should be kept in abeyance during pendency of a criminal case. In paragraph 22 conclusions which are deducible from various decisions were summarised. They are as follows : (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, PARUL VERMA 2026.08.01 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 10 CWP-21659-2026 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 guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest.” (Emphasis added) 7. The contention raised by learned State counsel that the present writ petition is barred by the principles of constructive res judicata and Order II Rule 2 CPC need not detain this Court as liberty was granted by the then Court to the petitioner to challenge the enquiry report vide order dated 08.12.2025 (Annexure P-9). Even otherwise, this Court is not inclined to non-suit the petitioner on the said preliminary objection, particularly when the challenge is directed against the inquiry report and the petitioner would remain at liberty to avail of such remedy as may be available to him in accordance with law against any final order that may ultimately be passed in the disciplinary proceedings. PARUL VERMA 2026.08.01 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 11 CWP-21659-2026 8. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that the departmental inquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice as he was allegedly not afforded an adequate opportunity of hearing. However, the record does not substantiate the said contention. Apart from the notices issued in the ordinary course, it is evident from page 182 of the paper book that notices of the inquiry proceedings were also communicated to the petitioner through e-mail at yudhvirdahiya@gmail.com and ysdahiya.bhiwani@gmail.com. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner had no knowledge of the inquiry proceedings. Merely because the petitioner chose not to participate in the inquiry or failed to seek an adjournment or exemption before the Inquiry Officer, he cannot subsequently allege violation of the principles of natural justice. 9. As regards the submission that the departmental proceedings ought to have been deferred till the conclusion of the criminal trials, the same is equally devoid of merit. As noticed hereinabove, it is a settled proposition of law that criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings operate in different fields and are governed by different standards of proof. The departmental authority is competent to proceed independently notwithstanding the pendency of a criminal case arising out of the same transaction, unless exceptional circumstances are shown to exist. No such exceptional circumstance has been demonstrated in the present case. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarvesh Berry (supra) leaves no PARUL VERMA 2026.08.01 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 12 CWP-21659-2026 manner of doubt that the continuance of departmental proceedings during the pendency of criminal proceedings does not suffer from any legal infirmity merely because both arise out of the same set of facts. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned inquiry report dated 25.11.2025 (Annexure P-10) in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. It is, however, clarified that if any final order adverse to the petitioner is passed in the disciplinary proceedings, it shall be open to him to avail of such statutory or other remedy as may be permissible in law. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 21.07.2026 parul verma Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No PARUL VERMA 2026.08.01 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document