Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Ishvinder Singh Ranyal Aged 39 Years vs Jammu And Kashmir Bank on 6 August, 2026
Sr. No. 116
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
ATJAMMU
WP (C) No. 588/2025
CM No. 1368/2025
CM No. 3280/2026
Reserved on: 24.07.2026
Pronounced on: 06.08.2026
Uploaded on:. 06.08.2026
Ishvinder Singh Ranyal Aged 39 years .... Petitioner
Son of Mohinder Singh,
R/o VPO Pouni Tehsil Pouni,
District Reasi.
Through: - Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Adv. With
Ms. Rudra Sharma, Advocate
Ms. Vanya Gupta, Advocate
v/s
1. Jammu and Kashmir Bank .....Respondent(s)
Limited, Corporation
Headquarters, M.A. Road,
Srinagar Through its Managing
Director.
2. General Manager (HR)
Jammu and Kashmir Bank
Limited Corporation
Headquarters,
M.A.Road, Srinagar.
3. Mr. Karan Dev Singh Kesar,
Chief General Manager,
Jammu and Kashmir Bank
Limited, Zonal Office, Jammu.
Through: - Mr. M. K. Bhardwaj, Sr. Adv. With
Mr. Manik Bhardwaj, Advocate
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner was serving as an Assistant Manager with the
J&K Bank at its Pouni Branch, District Reasi. During his
2
tenure, he was accused of forging the signatures of
customers and perpetrating fraudulent transactions with a
view to securing wrongful gain for himself and causing
corresponding loss to the customers as well as the Bank. It
is alleged that, during the period from September 2022 to
October 2023, the petitioner defrauded the customers of an
amount of Rs. 1,26,34,318/-, which was subsequently
classified as fraud. Accordingly, the respondent-Bank
reported the matter to the Reserve Bank of India. A further
amount of Rs. 30,32,678/- is stated to have been recovered
from the accounts of the petitioner and his relatives.
2. The respondent-Bank also set the criminal law in motion by
lodging an FIR against the petitioner for the commission of
offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468,
471, 477-A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon
completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be
presented against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences.
The petitioner was taken into custody on 28.03.2024 and
was subsequently admitted to bail.
3. Simultaneously, the respondent-Bank initiated
departmental proceedings against the petitioner. A show-
cause notice was initially served upon him, followed by
issuance of formal articles of charge. Broadly stated, the
allegations in the departmental proceedings are that the
petitioner committed acts prejudicial to the interests of the
WP (C) No. 588/2025
CM No. 3280/2026
CM No. 1368/2025
3
Bank; misused his official position and committed
embezzlement for securing personal gains; manipulated
entries in the records of the Bank with a view to concealing
the true state of affairs and covering up the irregularities
committed by him; and acted with dishonest intention. Such
conduct, according to the respondent-Bank, was
unbecoming of an officer of the Bank and had brought
disrepute to the institution.
4. Through the medium of the present petition, the petitioner
seeks, inter alia, issuance of a writ in the nature of
mandamus commanding the respondent-Bank not to
proceed with the departmental enquiry until conclusion of
the criminal proceedings arising out of the charge-sheet
titled “UT of J&K v. Ishvinder Singh Ranyal”, stated to be
pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Reasi.
5. The case set up by the petitioner is that the departmental
proceedings and the criminal prosecution arise out of the
same set of facts and are founded substantially upon the
same allegations. It is specifically pleaded that the
accusations forming the subject matter of the criminal trial
are grave and serious in nature and involve complicated
questions of fact and law. According to the petitioner,
permitting the disciplinary proceedings to continue during
the pendency of the criminal trial would cause serious
WP (C) No. 588/2025
CM No. 3280/2026
CM No. 1368/2025
4
prejudice to his defence, inasmuch as participation in the
departmental enquiry would compel him to disclose his
defence prematurely, which may thereafter be used to his
prejudice in the pending criminal proceedings.
6. The principal contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is
that where departmental proceedings and criminal
prosecution are founded upon the same set of facts and
substantially identical allegations, the disciplinary
proceedings ought to be deferred until the criminal
proceedings are finally concluded, particularly where the
criminal charges are grave and involve complicated
questions of fact and law.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the
aforesaid contention, has placed reliance upon a judgment
of the Madhya Pradesh High Court as also upon the decision
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M. Paul Anthony v.
Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another, (1999) 3 SCC
679.It is pertinent to notice that this Court, vide order dated
12.03.2025, had directed stay of the departmental enquiry
initiated against the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondents
repeatedly moved applications seeking vacation of the
interim order and early consideration of the matter. It is in
these circumstances that the petition has been taken up for
final consideration and heard on merits.
WP (C) No. 588/2025
CM No. 3280/2026
CM No. 1368/2025
5
8. The respondents have opposed the writ petition. Their
preliminary contention is that the issues raised by the
petitioner involve disputed questions of fact which would
require appreciation and sifting of evidence, an exercise
which, according to them, ought not ordinarily to be
undertaken by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
On merits, it is contended that criminal prosecution and
departmental proceedings operate in distinct fields and the
mere fact that the respondent-Bank itself lodged the FIR
does not preclude it from simultaneously pursuing
disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. According to
the respondents, the reliance placed by the petitioner upon
the judgments cited at the Bar is misconceived and does not
advance his case.
9. It is also the specific stand of the respondent-Bank that the
articles of charge framed in the departmental proceedings
are not identical to the charges forming the subject matter of
the criminal prosecution. The Bank claims to have
conducted an independent examination of the matter, on the
basis whereof it found that the petitioner had misused his
official position and committed acts amounting to
misconduct under the applicable service regulations. It was
on the basis of such material that the disciplinary
proceedings were initiated and are presently underway. The
pendency of the criminal trial, therefore, does not, according
WP (C) No. 588/2025
CM No. 3280/2026
CM No. 1368/2025
6
to the respondents, create any legal embargo upon
continuation of the departmental enquiry.
10. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The principal issue that arises for consideration in the
present petition is whether, during the pendency of the
criminal proceedings in which the petitioner is facing trial
for offences arising out of the same transaction which has
also led to initiation of departmental proceedings against
him, the disciplinary enquiry is required to be kept in
abeyance until conclusion of the criminal trial. The ancillary
question that arises is whether, having regard to the nature,
scope and object of the two proceedings, as also the time
ordinarily consumed in conclusion of a criminal trial, the
petitioner can, as a matter of right, seek stay of the
departmental proceedings merely on account of pendency of
the criminal prosecution.
11. Before embarking upon the rival arguments, it is necessary
to keep in mind the relevant precedents on the subject in
“Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport
Corporation Vs. Mohd. Yousuf Miya and Ors., AIR 1997
SC 2232, wherein the appellant had initiated disciplinary
proceedings against the respondent on the allegation that,
while driving the Corporation’s double-decker vehicle, due to
lack of anticipation, he had caused an accident in which a
cyclist died. Consequently, action was initiated for
WP (C) No. 588/2025
CM No. 3280/2026
CM No. 1368/2025
7
misconduct and an enquiry was ordered. In addition, the
prosecution had also launched a criminal trial against him
for an offence under Section 304, Part II, IPC. Thereafter, the
respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court
seeking a stay of the departmental proceedings. The learned
single Judge stayed the proceedings, which order was
confirmed by the Division Bench. In that way, the matter
reached before the Apex Court. Allowing the appeal, the
Apex Court while relying upon “State of Rajasthan Vs. B.
K. Meena and Ors.” held in Para 8 as under: –
“8. When the original application came up for final
hearing, the only ground urged by the respondent
was that the departmental proceedings be not
allowed to go on so long as the criminal
proceedings are pending against him. It was
opposed by the State of Rajasthan stating inter
alia that inasmuch as the respondent has filed a
detailed written statement of defence on 9-2-1993
(in response to memo of charges framed against
him) and because the respondent has disclosed all
possible defences in the said written statement,
there is no occasion or warrant for staying the
disciplinary proceedings.”
12. In “Ajit Kumar Nag Vs. General Manager (P.J.), Indian
Oil Corporation Ltd., Haldia and Ors.” AIR 2005 SC
4217, the appellant was serving in Indian Oil Corporation
Ltd. as a Senior Officer and was accused of offence under
Sections 147, 149, 341, 323 and 506 of the IPC. Side by
side, he was also proceeded with departmental enquiry.
WP (C) No. 588/2025
CM No. 3280/2026
CM No. 1368/2025
8
However, the Corporation was yet to take action against
him. He filed a writ petition in which ex-parte ad-interim
relief was granted, which order was assailed before the
Division Bench and was set aside. During the currency of
the departmental proceedings as well as the proceedings
before the High Court in the criminal case, the appellant
was acquitted. Thereafter, the writ petition filed regarding
departmental proceedings was ultimately dismissed.The
appellant preferred an appeal before the Division Bench,
which too came to be dismissed. Thereafter, he approached
the Apex Court. Dismissing the appeal, the Apex Court held
in para 44 as under:-
“44. In our view, neither the learned single Judge
nor the Division Bench has committed any error
of law and/or of jurisdiction which deserves
interference in exercise of discretionary
jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.
As is clear, the situation has been created by the
appellant. It was very grave and serious and
called for immediate stern action by the General
Manager. Exercise of extraordinary power in
exceptional circumstances under Standing Order
20 (VI) in the circumstances, cannot be said to be
arbitrary, unreasonable or mala fide. It is well-
settled that the burden of proving mala fide is on
the person making the allegations and the
burden is “very heavy”. [vide E.P. Royappa V.
State of Tamil Nadu and Anr.
MANU/SC/0380/1973: (1974) ILLJ172SC].
There is every presumption in favour of the
administration that the power has been exercised
bona fide and in good faith. It is to be
remembered that the allegations of mala fide are
often more easily made than made out and theWP (C) No. 588/2025
CM No. 3280/2026
CM No. 1368/2025
9very seriousness of such allegations demands
proof of a high degree of credibility. As Krishna
Iyer, J. stated in Gulam Mustafa and Ors. V.
State of Maharashtra and Ors.
MANU/SC/0400/1975: [1976]1SCR875; “It
(Mala fide) is the last refuge of a losing litigant”.
13. In “M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and
another” (1999) 3 SCC 679, in this case the appellant was
a Security Officer, was found in unauthorised possession of
mining sponge gold ball that led to the registration of a
criminal case against him. Side by side, there was a
departmental enquiry as well. He filed a writ petition before
the High Court seeking restraint against the respondent
from proceeding with the disciplinary enquiry till the
conclusion of the criminal case.The writ petition was
disposed of with a direction that the respondent shall
consider and dispose of the appellant’s appeal filed against
the suspension order.
14. During the currency of the departmental proceedings, the
appellant was acquitted in the criminal case on 03.02.1987
with a categorical finding that the prosecution had failed to
establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. He brought the
judgment of the criminal Court to the notice of the Inquiry
Officer with a request that he may be reinstated, which was
rejected and he was dismissed from services. He filed a writ
petition, which was allowed by the learned single Judge.
However, the said judgment was set aside by the Division
WP (C) No. 588/2025
CM No. 3280/2026
CM No. 1368/2025
10
Bench, permitting the appellant to file a petition before the
Supreme Court. The Apex Court held in paragraph 34 as
under: –
“34. There is yet another reason for discarding
the whole of the case of the respondents. As
pointed out earlier, the criminal case as also the
departmental proceedings were based on
identical set of facts, namely, “the raid conducted
at the appellant’s residence and recovery of
incriminating articles therefrom”. The findings
recorded by the enquiry officer, a copy of which
has been placed before us, indicate that the
charges framed against the appellant were
sought to be proved by police officers and panch
witnesses, who had raided the house of the
appellant and had effected recovery. They were
the only witnesses examined by the enquiry
officer and the enquiry officer, relying upon their
statements, came to the conclusion that the
charges were established against the appellant.
The same witnesses were examined in the
criminal case but the Court, on a consideration of
the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that
no search was conducted nor was any recovery
made from the residence of the appellant. The
whole case of the prosecution was thrown out
and the appellant was acquitted. In this
situation, therefore, where the appellant is
acquitted by a judicial pronouncement with the
finding that the “raid and recovery” at the
residence of the appellant were not proved, it
would be unjust, unfair and rather oppressive to
allow the findings recorded at the ex parte
departmental proceedings to stand.”
15. In “G. M. Tank Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors.” AIR 2006
SC 2129″, the appellant had joined as an Overseer, who
regularly submitted property returns. Later, the Anti
WP (C) No. 588/2025
CM No. 3280/2026
CM No. 1368/2025
11
Corruption Bureau carried out an investigation and found
that he was in possession of properties beyond his known of
income. The Anti Corruption Bureau carried out an
investigation and submitted a report and charge-sheet on
20.02.1979 alleging that he had acquired wealth in excess of
his income by way of gratification. The appellant denied the
allegations. Side by side, a departmental enquiry was
ordered, wherein he was found guilty of the charges and was
dismissed from service. He filed a writ petition against the
dismissal order. The learned Single Judge found that there
was sufficient evidence against the appellant and dismissed
the petition. Against said order, an LPA was preferred before
the Division Bench, which too confirmed the said order.
Thereafter, the matter came up before the Apex Court.
Considering the law on the subject, the Apex Court set aside
the dismissal of the petitioner by holding in paragraphs 15
and 16 as under:-
“15. The judgments relied on by the learned
counsel appearing for the respondents are not
distinguishable on facts and on law. In this
case, the departmental proceedings and the
criminal case are based on identical and similar
set of facts and the charge in a Departmental
case against the appellant and the charge
before the Criminal Court are one and the same.
It is true that the nature of charge in the
departmental proceedings and in the criminal
case is grave. The nature of the case launched
against the appellant on the basis of evidence
and material collected against him duringWP (C) No. 588/2025
CM No. 3280/2026
CM No. 1368/2025
12enquiry and investigation and as reflected in the
charge sheet, factors mentioned are one and the
same. In other words, charges, evidence,
witnesses and circumstances are one and the
same. In the present case, criminal and
departmental proceedings have already noticed
or granted on the same set of facts namely, raid
conducted at the appellant’s residence, recovery
of articles therefrom. The Investigating Officer,
Mr. V.B. Raval and other departmental
witnesses were the only witnesses examined by
the Enquiry Officer who by relying upon their
statement came to the conclusion that the
charges were established against the appellant.
The same witnesses were examined in the
criminal case and the criminal court on the
examination came to the conclusion that the
prosecution has not proved the guilt alleged
against the appellant beyond any reasonable
doubt and acquitted the appellant by his judicial
pronouncement with the finding that the charge
has not been proved. It is also to be noticed the
judicial pronouncement was made after a
regular trial and on hot contest. Under these
circumstances, it would be unjust and unfair
and rather oppressive to allow the findings
recorded in the departmental proceedings to
stand.”
“16. In our opinion, such facts and evidence in
the department as well as criminal proceedings
were the same without there being any iota of
difference, the appellant should succeed. The
distinction which is usually proved between the
departmental and criminal proceedings on the
basis of the approach and burden of proof
would not be applicable in the instant case.
Though finding recorded in the domestic enquiry
was found to be valid by the Courts below,
when there was an honourable acquittal of the
employee during the pendency of the
proceedings challenging the dismissal, the same
requires to be taken note of and the decision in
Paul Anthony‘s case (supra) will apply. We,
WP (C) No. 588/2025
CM No. 3280/2026
CM No. 1368/2025
13therefore, hold that the appeal filed by the
appellant deserves to be allowed.”
16. A single Bench of this Court in “Akhand Prakash Shahi
Vs. Union of India & Anr.“, in [WP(C) No. 1876/2025 c/w
WP(C) No. 3128/2023; D.O.D. 14.11.2025] held as under:
“22. With the aforesaid legal position in mind, let
us now advert to the facts of the present case.
There is no doubt to the fact that substratum of
the criminal case and the departmental enquiry
initiated against the petitioner is the complaint
lodged by the lady ASI against him. It is also a
fact that charge levelled against the petitioner is
of a grave nature. But merely because of these
factors, it cannot be stated that the departmental
proceedings are required to be kept in abeyance
till the decision of the criminal case unless it is
shown that criminal case against the petitioner,
besides being of a grave nature, involves
complicated question of law and fact and that
continuance of departmental proceedings against
the petitioner would prejudice his defence. The
allegation of the lady ASI against the petitioner is
simple that she was lured by the petitioner into
sexual intercourse on the basis of false promise
of marriage. The determination of veracity of this
allegation by the criminal court or during the
departmental proceedings does not involve
decision of a complicated question of fact or law.
Besides this, defence of the petitioner before the
criminal court is not going to be prejudiced in
case the departmental proceedings are allowed
to go ahead because the petitioner has already
disclosed his defence not only in the petitions
filed by him before this Court but also in his
representations filed by him before the
respondents. Even in his bail application filed
before the criminal Court, the petitioner has
disclosed his defence. Therefore, no prejudice
would be caused to the petitioner in case both the
criminal case as well as departmental
WP (C) No. 588/2025
CM No. 3280/2026
CM No. 1368/2025
14proceedings are allowed to proceed
simultaneously.”
17. Having noticed the aforesaid legal position, this Court now
proceed to examine the case of the petitioner on its own
facts. As per the charge-sheet presented before the trial
Court, the petitioner is accused of having, while functioning
as Hall In-charge, dishonestly misappropriated amounts
lying in various dormant, inactive or rarely operated
accounts, with the intention of appropriating the illegally
withdrawn amounts to his own use. Upon conclusion of the
investigation, the investigating agency found material
warranting prosecution of the petitioner for the commission
of offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468,
18. The material placed on record further reveals that the
alleged fraud came to the notice of the respondent-Bank in
November 2023 during the course of an internal audit. It is
alleged that, after the irregularities began to surface, the
petitioner started depositing amounts towards the money
allegedly misappropriated by him, including through his
loan accounts and with funds arranged from his friends. By
the time the alleged fraud came to be fully detected, an
amount of Rs. 29,75,000/- had reportedly been recovered.
During investigation, it was further found that the petitioner
had allegedly prepared forged vouchers and used the same
WP (C) No. 588/2025
CM No. 3280/2026
CM No. 1368/2025
15
for effecting unauthorised withdrawals and misappropriation
of funds. The questioned vouchers were subjected to
forensic examination by comparison with the admitted
specimen writings/signatures, and the forensic opinion is
stated to have attributed the preparation and execution of
the questioned documents to the petitioner.
19. The petitioner, thus, stands charge-sheeted before the
competent criminal Court and, simultaneously, is also
facing departmental proceedings. As per the criminal
charge-sheet, as many as 185 allegedly unauthorised
transactions have been attributed to the petitioner, out of
which 123 transactions are stated to involve
misappropriation of funds. It is alleged that the petitioner
illegally transferred the amounts in question, thereby
securing wrongful gain for himself and causing
corresponding wrongful loss to the account holders and/or
their nominees.
20. Simultaneously, articles of charge have been served upon
the petitioner in the departmental proceedings. The
substance of the allegation is that the petitioner forged the
signatures of deceased customers and prepared fraudulent
vouchers for securing wrongful gain to himself, thereby
indulging in acts amounting to breach of trust and
misappropriation. On the basis of these allegations, the
WP (C) No. 588/2025
CM No. 3280/2026
CM No. 1368/2025
16
petitioner has been charged with the following acts of
misconduct:
(i) doing acts prejudicial to the interests of the Bank;
(ii) embezzlement or misuse of official position or powers for personal gain;
(iii) manipulation of entries in the records of the Bank with a view to concealing
the actual position or covering up irregularities with dishonest motive; and
(iv) acting in a manner unbecoming of an officer of the Bank.
21. There is no serious dispute that the transactions which
constitute the substratum of the criminal prosecution also
form the factual foundation of the departmental
proceedings. That, however, does not mean that the charges
in the two proceedings are identical in their nature or legal
character. In the criminal trial, the petitioner is being
prosecuted for specific offences relating, inter alia, to
criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery, use of forged
documents and falsification of accounts. The departmental
proceedings, on the other hand, are concerned with
whether, by his acts and omissions, the petitioner acted
prejudicially to the interests of the Bank, misused his official
position for personal gain, manipulated the Bank’s records
and otherwise conducted himself in a manner unbecoming
of an officer.
22. The principal plea of the petitioner is that since the criminal
prosecution and the departmental proceedings arise
substantially out of the same set of facts, continuation of the
departmental enquiry during the pendency of the criminal
WP (C) No. 588/2025
CM No. 3280/2026
CM No. 1368/2025
17
trial is impermissible. The contention, in the considered view
of this Court, proceeds on an erroneous understanding of
the settled legal position. The law does not lay down any
absolute rule that whenever a criminal prosecution and
departmental proceedings arise out of the same transaction,
one must necessarily await the conclusion of the other. On
the contrary, the settled position is that both proceedings
may ordinarily continue simultaneously, unless the facts of
a particular case disclose circumstances warranting
deferment of the disciplinary proceedings.
23. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to bring the
case within the exception by contending that participation in
the departmental enquiry would compel the petitioner to
disclose his defence, thereby causing prejudice to him in the
pending criminal trial. Reliance in this regard has
principally been placed upon M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold
Mines Ltd. and another (supra). The factual setting in M.
Paul Anthony, however, deserves to be noticed. In that case,
the departmental proceedings and the criminal prosecution
rested upon a raid and the consequential recovery of certain
incriminating articles. The criminal Court, upon
appreciation of the evidence, disbelieved the very raid and
recovery forming the foundation of the prosecution. In those
peculiar circumstances, the result of the criminal
proceedings had a direct bearing upon the sustainability of
WP (C) No. 588/2025
CM No. 3280/2026
CM No. 1368/2025
18
the disciplinary action founded upon the same evidence. The
principle enunciated therein cannot, therefore, be
understood as laying down an inflexible rule requiring stay
of disciplinary proceedings whenever a criminal prosecution
arising from the same factual background is pending.
24. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, while dealing with a
similar contention that continuation of departmental
proceedings would prejudice the defence of the delinquent
employee in the pending criminal trial, declined to accept
such a proposition as an absolute rule. In that case, the
allegation against the petitioner therein was that he had
induced the complainant to enter into a physical
relationship on the basis of a false promise of marriage. The
Coordinate Bench found that determination of the veracity
of the allegations, whether in the departmental proceedings
or in the criminal trial, did not involve such complicated
questions of fact or law as would justify keeping the
departmental proceedings in abeyance. The contention that
the delinquent employee would be compelled to disclose his
defence was also found to be without substance, particularly
as his defence had already been disclosed in the bail
proceedings as well as in the pleadings before the Court. The
plea of prejudice was, accordingly, rejected. The judgment of
the learned Single Judge was subsequently upheld by the
WP (C) No. 588/2025
CM No. 3280/2026
CM No. 1368/2025
19
Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 275/2025, decided
on 11.12.2025.
25. Applying the aforesaid principles to the case at hand, there
can be no dispute that the nature, object and standard of
proof governing the two proceedings are distinct. The
criminal case against the petitioner revolves around
allegations of fraudulent entries in the account books,
preparation and use of forged vouchers, unauthorised
withdrawals from dormant or inactive accounts and alleged
dishonest appropriation of the amounts so withdrawn.
These acts are alleged to constitute criminal offences for
which the petitioner is facing trial. The same transactions
may also furnish the factual foundation for the departmental
proceedings, but the enquiry therein is essentially directed
towards determining whether the petitioner’s conduct
constitutes misconduct under the applicable service
regulations. Mere commonality of the underlying facts,
therefore, cannot by itself constitute sufficient ground for
staying the departmental enquiry.
26. Significantly, there is no specific foundation laid in the
petition to demonstrate that continuation of the
departmental proceedings would result in any real or
demonstrable prejudice to the petitioner’s defence in the
criminal trial. Nor is it the petitioner’s pleaded case that the
disciplinary proceedings have been initiated in violation of
WP (C) No. 588/2025
CM No. 3280/2026
CM No. 1368/2025
20
the prescribed procedure or are otherwise vitiated by any
jurisdictional infirmity. The expression “complicated
questions of fact and law” cannot be invoked as a mere
incantation. The delinquent employee seeking deferment of
disciplinary proceedings must demonstrate, with reference
to the nature of the criminal charge, the evidence likely to be
led and the defence required to be disclosed, as to how
continuation of the departmental proceedings would
materially prejudice the criminal trial. No such foundation
has been laid in the present case.
27. Whether continuation of disciplinary proceedings is likely to
seriously prejudice the defence of an accused in a pending
criminal trial is, ultimately, a question that must be
determined on the facts and circumstances of each case. In
Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport
Corporation v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya and others (supra) the
delinquent employee was facing criminal prosecution for
offences under Sections 304-A and 338 IPC and was
simultaneously subjected to departmental proceedings. The
contention that continuation of the disciplinary proceedings
would prejudice his defence in the criminal case was not
accepted, and the stay granted by the High Court against
the departmental proceedings was vacated.
28. The principle enunciated therein applies with considerable
force to the present case. On the other hand, the reliance
WP (C) No. 588/2025
CM No. 3280/2026
CM No. 1368/2025
21
placed by the petitioner upon M. Paul Anthony (supra) is
misplaced, the said decision having been rendered in its own
peculiar factual setting. The apprehension expressed by the
petitioner that disclosure of his defence in the departmental
proceedings would prejudice the criminal trial remains, in
the absence of any specific factual foundation, merely
speculative.
29. There is yet another important distinction which cannot be
overlooked. In departmental proceedings, the charge of
misconduct is required to be established on the touchstone
of preponderance of probabilities, whereas in a criminal trial
the prosecution carries the substantially higher burden of
proving the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The rules of
evidence applicable to a criminal trial also do not apply with
the same rigour to disciplinary proceedings. An outcome in
one proceeding, therefore, does not necessarily dictate the
outcome in the other.
30. The distinction between the two proceedings has also been
reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of
Karnataka and others v. Umesh, 2022 SCC Online SC
345. In that case, the employee had been prosecuted for
offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and
was acquitted upon being extended the benefit of doubt. The
Supreme Court reiterated that while the object of a criminal
trial is to determine criminal culpability and, upon
WP (C) No. 588/2025
CM No. 3280/2026
CM No. 1368/2025
22
conviction, impose punishment prescribed by law,
disciplinary proceedings are intended to determine whether
the conduct of an employee amounts to misconduct
warranting imposition of a penalty under the applicable
service rules. The two proceedings, therefore, serve distinct
purposes and are governed by different standards.
31. Viewed in the light of the aforesaid principles, the
apprehension expressed by the petitioner that disclosure of
his defence in the departmental proceedings would prejudice
him in the criminal trial is unsupported by any tangible
material. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the
criminal case involves such complicated questions of fact
and law, or that the nature of his proposed defence is such,
that continuation of the departmental enquiry would cause
serious and irretrievable prejudice to him in the criminal
trial.
32. No doubt, the factual matrix underlying both proceedings
substantially overlaps. That circumstance alone, however, is
insufficient to interdict the disciplinary proceedings. The
criminal Court would be concerned with determining
whether the acts attributed to the petitioner satisfy the
ingredients of the penal offences alleged against him and
whether the prosecution has established those offences
beyond reasonable doubt. The disciplinary authority, on the
other hand, is concerned with determining whether the
WP (C) No. 588/2025
CM No. 3280/2026
CM No. 1368/2025
23
petitioner’s conduct, viewed in the context of his duties and
obligations as an officer of the Bank, constitutes misconduct
under the applicable service regulations. The two
proceedings thus operate in distinct spheres
notwithstanding that some of the evidence and underlying
transactions may overlap.
33. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is unable to
find any exceptional circumstance warranting interference
with the departmental proceedings or requiring the
respondent-Bank to keep the same in abeyance until
conclusion of the criminal trial. The petitioner has failed to
establish any real or demonstrable prejudice which would be
occasioned to his defence in the criminal proceedings by
continuation of the departmental enquiry. The writ petition,
being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. The interim
direction(s), if any, operating in the matter shall stand
vacated.
(Sanjay Parihar)
Judge
JAMMU
06.08.2026
Diksha
Whether the judgment is speaking: Yes
Whether the judgment is reportable: Yes
WP (C) No. 588/2025
CM No. 3280/2026
CM No. 1368/2025
