Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru: Central Departmental proceedings can continue during the pendency of criminal proceedings

Case Brief 

Case No. – M.G. Karan & ors. v Union of India arising out of OA – 170/00289/2022 

Court – Central administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench.  

Date of order – 6th June 2023 

Bench – Hon’ble Mrs. Justice S. Sujatha, Member (J); Hon’ble Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Member (A)  

Facts –  

• A filed a complaint alleging sexual harassment against B.  

• A also filed a police complaint against B.  

• The case was entrusted to the Circle Level Committee for Prevention of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace which recommended disciplinary action. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against B while a police complaint was already registered.  

• B pleaded that disciplinary proceedings should not be continued as the criminal proceedings are in the process. 

• B stated that during pendency of criminal proceedings, disciplinary action should be kept on hold.  

Issue –  

Can disciplinary proceedings continue when criminal proceedings under POSH and IPC are in process?  

Law –  

1. Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Rules, 2013  

2. Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965  

Analysis –  

1. The Central Administrative Tribunal relied on the following cases: 

• Depot Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Mohd. Yousuf Miya & Ors. (Supreme Court, 1997): which stated that departmental proceedings and prosecution are two different aspects. While a departmental proceeding is to maintain discipline and efficiency, criminal proceedings are initiated for an offence of violation of duty that a person owes as a member of society. A crime is against society, and not an individual.  

• Ajit Kumar Nag vs G.M. (P.J.) Indian Oil Corporation. Ltd. Haldia & Ors. (Supreme Court, 2005): stated that the level of evidence required in a departmental proceeding is not the same as that of criminal proceedings. Criminal proceedings are governed by the Evidence Act which is not the same for the departmental proceedings. 

2. In this case, B had been convicted by the JFMC, and the order had been stayed by the sessions judge for a certain period, but that would not absolve him from the proceedings conducted within the department.  

3. In criminal proceedings, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to establish the offence beyond reasonable doubt, while in departmental proceedings, guilt can be established on the basis of ‘preponderance of probability’. 

Conclusion  

The case highlighted that the departmental proceedings would continue during the pendency of criminal proceedings.  

Written by – Namah Bose, 4^th Year, RGNUL, Intern The Legal Swan