Vikash Kumar Gupta vs REVENUE on 15 October 2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR Order Sheet Item no.: 50 O.A./704/2026 (JABALPUR) [ DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY ] Court No.: 1 No of Adjournment: 2 Order Dated: 15/10/2026 VIKASH KUMAR GUPTA Vs REVENUE

For Applicant(s) Advocate : MS KAUSHIKI SHARMA PROXY COUNSEL FOR SHRI AKASH CHOUDHARY

For Respondent(s) Advocate : SHRI ABHIJEET SHRIVASTAVA Order of The Tribunal Matter was listed for consideration of interim prayer. Applicant’s counsel seeks interim protection that departmental proceedings initiated against the applicant vide charge memorandum dated 09.02.2026 (Annexure A/1) should be stayed. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant, while functioning as Inspector in the Preventive Branch of Central GST and Central Excise, Headquarters, Jabalpur, is alleged to have demanded and accepted illegal gratification in connivance with other officials for issuance of release orders in respect of certain factory premises. It is further alleged that the applicant was apprehended by the CBI while accepting the second instalment of Rs. 7,00,000/-. During the post-trap proceedings, certain amounts of cash, keys of the factory premises, original release orders and a receipt were allegedly recovered from the applicant's office. In connection with the aforesaid allegations, a criminal case has been instituted against the applicant, in which the charges have reportedly been framed. The respondents, relying upon the same set of allegations, have initiated departmental proceedings against the applicant by issuing the impugned charge memorandum dated 09.02.2026. The principal contention of the applicant is that the allegations forming the subject matter of the departmental proceedings are substantially identical to those involved in the criminal trial and that his defence in the criminal proceedings may be prejudiced if he is compelled to participate in the departmental inquiry simultaneously. The respondents, on the other hand, have opposed the prayer, contending that the allegations disclose serious misconduct and that the recoveries made during the CBI proceedings justify the initiation of disciplinary action. The respondents have filed their reply wherein it is submitted that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature and relate to the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. It was further submitted that the applicant was apprehended by the CBI while accepting the alleged bribe and that the subsequent recoveries lend support to the charges. Accordingly, the respondents contended that the pendency of the criminal trial does not warrant a stay of the departmental proceedings. We have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. It is well settled that the mere pendency of a criminal trial does not, by itself, operate as a bar to simultaneous departmental proceedings. However, in appropriate cases, where the charges are grave, the factual foundation of the criminal prosecution and the departmental inquiry is substantially identical, and the defence of the employee involves complicated questions of fact and law, the departmental proceedings may be stayed for a limited period in order to safeguard the employee against possible prejudice in the criminal trial. In the present case, a prima facie consideration of the pleadings indicates that the departmental proceedings arise out of the same alleged transaction that forms the subject matter of the criminal prosecution initiated by the CBI. The allegations involve the alleged demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, the circumstances of the trap proceedings and the recoveries allegedly effected during the subsequent search. These circumstances warrant consideration of the applicant's apprehension that simultaneous proceedings may have an adverse bearing upon his defence in the criminal case. At the same time, the allegations are serious in nature, and the question of the applicant's guilt or innocence cannot be prejudged at this interlocutory stage. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble MP High Court in Kunur Sharath vs. Union of India and other WP No.39154 of 2024 wherein the Hon’ble MP High Court has directed to stay the disciplinary proceedings for a period of one year. In light of the above judgment of Hon’ble MP High Court the disciplinary proceedings are stayed for a period of one year. List the matter on 23.12.2026. Issue certified copy. Smt Mallika Arya Member (A) RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA Member (J) Rajul Namdeo ( steno 'c' )