Anil Kumar Matlani vs Union Of India & Ors.

By Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (Judicial)

The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking quashing of the charge memorandum dated 30.10.2025 and the consequential disciplinary proceedings, and further seeking a direction to the Disciplinary Authority to consider his request for keeping the departmental proceedings in abeyance till conclusion of the criminal proceedings. The reliefs prayed for by the applicant are as under:-

Central Administrative Tribunal^{2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant, while} working as Superintendent, CGST, Kaushambi Range, Division-II, CGST & Central Excise Commissionerate, Allahabad, was served with a memorandum of charge dated 30.10.2025 under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, proposing initiation of major penalty proceedings against him. The charge memorandum contains two Articles of Charge arising out of the physical verification of M/s Loopeak Fintech Pvt. Ltd. The allegation, inter alia, is that although the physical verification was assigned to the applicant on 17.04.2025, it was conducted by him along with Shri Hari Shankar Saroj, Inspector, on 02.05.2025 and the verification report was submitted on 03.05.2025, and that an illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/- was demanded by the applicant and accepted by Shri Hari Shankar Saroj on his behalf during the CBI trap proceedings. It is further alleged that during the post-trap proceedings, the applicant acknowledged the demand and directed Shri Hari Shankar Saroj to hand over the amount to him. In respect of the same incident, a criminal case bearing RC No. 0062025A0013 dated 03.05.2025 was registered by the CBI, ACB, Lucknow and criminal proceedings are stated to be pending before the competent CBI Court. The applicant was placed under suspension on 06.05.2025, which was subsequently revoked on 01.08.2025. Prosecution sanction was thereafter granted on 16.10.2025 and the impugned charge memorandum was issued on 30.10.2025. The applicant submitted his written statement of defence denying the charges and requested that the departmental proceedings be kept in abeyance till conclusion of the Central Administrative Tribunal^{criminal proceedings, contending that the departmental} charges are based upon the same allegations, evidence and witnesses as involved in the criminal case. Notwithstanding the said request, an Inquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer were appointed vide orders dated 08.12.2025. Aggrieved by the issuance of the aforesaid charge memorandum and the consequential initiation of departmental proceedings, the applicant has filed the present Original Application.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned departmental proceedings arise out of the very same incident which is the subject matter of the criminal prosecution before the competent CBI Court and that the Articles of Charge and the evidence and witnesses relied upon in both proceedings are substantially identical. It is submitted that the criminal case involves serious allegations of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification and raises complicated questions of fact and law, whereas the departmental proceedings are substantially founded upon the material collected during the CBI investigation. Learned counsel further submits that compelling the applicant to disclose his defence in the departmental proceedings while the criminal trial is pending would seriously prejudice his defence before the criminal Court. It is also contended that, despite the specific request made by the applicant, the Disciplinary Authority has not taken a reasoned decision as to whether the departmental proceedings ought to proceed simultaneously with the criminal prosecution, particularly in the light of the DoPT O.M. dated 01.08.2007 and CVC Circular No. 08/07/2018 dated 31.07.2018. Reliance is placed upon the judicial precedents referred to in the Original Central Administrative Tribunal^{Application, including Capt. M. Paul Anthony and State Bank of} India v. Neelam Nag, to submit that where the charges in the criminal and departmental proceedings are substantially the same and the evidence and witnesses are also common, and the criminal case involves grave and complicated questions of fact and law, the departmental proceedings ought to be kept in abeyance till conclusion of the criminal case. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the impugned charge memorandum and consequential disciplinary proceedings be quashed or, in the alternative, the departmental proceedings be kept in abeyance till conclusion of the criminal proceedings.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the criminal proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the departmental disciplinary proceedings under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, are distinct in nature and operate in different fields. It is submitted that the departmental charges relate to violation of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, including failure to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty, indulgence in activities unbecoming of a Government servant and failure to discharge duties properly as a supervisory officer. Learned counsel further submits that the departmental charges do not involve complicated questions of law and facts warranting deferment of the departmental proceedings till conclusion of the criminal case.

In the Short Counter Affidavit, it has been stated that the departmental proceedings are not required to be stayed merely because a criminal trial is pending on the same charges and that the competent authority may take a decision having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. It is further stated that, after considering the applicant’s representation dated 12.01.2026 seeking deferment of the departmental proceedings, the Disciplinary Authority rejected the said request. The respondents have also stated that the applicant had already submitted his defence reply dated 28.11.2025 and the same, along with the relevant documents, was forwarded to the Inquiry Officer. It is thus contended that the departmental proceedings have been initiated and are being conducted in accordance with the applicable rules and that no ground has been made out for interference by this Tribunal.

In the Short Rejoinder Affidavit, the applicant has reiterated the same contentions regarding the similarity of the charges and evidence in the departmental and criminal proceedings and has further contended that the departmental proceedings ought to be kept in abeyance in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the DoPT and CVC guidelines. It is further contended that the Disciplinary Authority rejected the applicant’s request vide order dated 29.01.2026 without recording sufficient or cogent reasons and without demonstrating as to how the departmental proceedings did not involve complicated questions of fact and law. The applicant has also reiterated that the interim relief sought in the Original Application deserves to be granted.

Learned counsel for the applicant, in support of his submissions, has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including Capt. M. Paul Anthony and State Bank of India v. Neelam Nag, as also the DoPT O.M. dated 01.08.2007 and CVC Circular No. 08/07/2018 dated 31.07.2018. Learned counsel has further placed reliance upon the order dated 19.12.2024 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1250/2024, Sushil Kumar v. Post U.P. Circle, and the judgment of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Sujit Kumar Maurya v. Union of India and others, reported in 2024 (6) ADJ 595. It is submitted that, in view of the aforesaid judgments and guidelines, the departmental proceedings, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, ought to be kept in abeyance till conclusion of the criminal proceedings.

We have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the pleadings, documents and material available on record. The principal issue which arises for consideration is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the departmental proceedings initiated against the applicant ought to be continued simultaneously with the criminal proceedings arising out of the same incident or kept in abeyance till conclusion of the criminal proceedings.

It is not in dispute that the departmental proceedings and the criminal proceedings arise out of the same incident. The applicant has contended that the Articles of Charge, evidence and witnesses in both proceedings are substantially the same, whereas the respondents have taken the stand that the departmental charges relate to violation of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and are distinct from the charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The CVC Circular No.08/07/2018 dated 31.07.2018, read with the DoPT O.M. dated 01.08.2007, makes it clear that simultaneous initiation of departmental proceedings with criminal prosecution is not, by itself, barred; however, in exceptional cases involving grave charges and complicated questions of law and facts, the desirability of keeping the departmental proceedings in abeyance till conclusion of the criminal case may be considered, having regard to the nature of the offence, evidence and material collected during investigation.

The CVC Circular No. 08/07/2018 dated 31.07.2018, while reiterating that there is no bar to conducting simultaneous criminal and departmental proceedings, also provides for an exception in cases involving grave charges and complicated questions of fact and law. The relevant portion of the aforesaid Circular is quoted below:—

The aforesaid guidelines make it clear that simultaneous departmental and criminal proceedings are not generally barred, but in exceptional cases involving grave charges and complicated questions of fact and law, the departmental proceedings may be kept in abeyance till conclusion of the criminal case. In the present case, the applicant’s request for keeping the departmental proceedings in abeyance till conclusion of the criminal proceedings, which has been rejected by the Disciplinary Authority, therefore, requires reconsideration in the light of Central Administrative Tribunal^{the aforesaid principles and the facts and circumstances of} the case.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Another and State Bank of India v. Neelam Nag has also considered the circumstances in which departmental proceedings arising out of the same set of facts as the criminal prosecution may be kept in abeyance. The applicant has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Sujit Kumar Maurya v. Union of India and others, reported in 2024 (6) ADJ 595, as well as the order dated 19.12.2024 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No.1250/2024, Sushil Kumar v. Post U.P. Circle. The aforesaid authorities, however, require consideration in the factual backdrop of each case, particularly with regard to the nature of the charges, the evidence relied upon in both proceedings and the possibility of prejudice being caused to the defence of the delinquent employee in the criminal prosecution.

In the present case, the applicant had specifically requested the Disciplinary Authority to keep the departmental proceedings in abeyance till conclusion of the criminal proceedings. The said request was rejected vide order dated 29.01.2026. The applicant, in his Short Rejoinder Affidavit, has specifically contended that the said decision does not sufficiently disclose the reasons for arriving at the conclusion that the proceedings do not involve complicated questions of fact and law. Having regard to the nature of the controversy and the principles noticed hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the applicant's request deserves to be reconsidered by the competent authority in the light of the aforesaid judgments, the DoPT O.M. dated 01.08.2007 and the CVC Circular dated 31.07.2018.

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the charges levelled against the applicant or on the merits of the pending criminal proceedings, the competent authority amongst the respondents is directed to reconsider the applicant’s request for keeping the departmental proceedings in abeyance till conclusion of the criminal proceedings, in the light of the CVC Circular No. 08/07/2018 dated 31.07.2018 as well as the judgments relied upon. While reconsidering the said request, the competent authority shall take into consideration the nature of the charges, the similarity or otherwise of the evidence and witnesses in the two proceedings, the stage of the criminal proceedings and the likelihood of prejudice, if any, to the applicant’s defence in the criminal case. A reasoned and speaking order shall be passed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and the decision so taken shall be communicated to the applicant forthwith.

Till the aforesaid decision is taken, the departmental proceedings against the applicant shall not be proceeded with further. It is, however, made clear that this direction shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the charges levelled against the applicant or on the merits of the pending criminal proceedings.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present Original Application is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

All pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, stand disposed of.