Fake arms licence? Madhya Pradesh High Court refuses relief to government employee

The court noted that the FIR was lodged only on January 10, while departmental proceedings were already underway; similarity of allegations or pendency of criminal case alone warrants no stay.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a government employee’s plea seeking a stay on departmental proceedings pending against her in connection with an alleged fake arms licence case.

Dealing with a plea of Madhubala Maurya, an employee in the arms section of the collectorate, Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat held that criminal and departmental proceedings can ordinarily continue simultaneously, and pendency of a criminal case alone does not warrant a stay.

“The FIR itself was lodged only on January 10, whereas the departmental proceedings are already in progress. Mere similarity of the allegations or pendency of the criminal case is not sufficient to stay the departmental proceedings,” the court said.

The order noted that, moreover, no material on record establishes that continuing the departmental proceedings would prejudice the petitioner or that the case involves complicated questions of law and fact warranting a stay. “Therefore, the principles relied upon by the petitioner are distinguishable and do not justify interference with the impugned action,” it said.

Madhubala Maurya was appointed as an assistant grade-III in 2017 after being selected through a competitive examination. In July 2024, she was transferred to the arms section of the collectorate, but she claimed that the predecessor did not hand over charge of the post to her despite repeated requests.

Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat heard the matter on September 15.

In January this year, police registered an FIR in connection with the alleged issuance of fake arms licences in Bhind district, with some of the licences allegedly dating back to 2015. She was chargesheeted in the criminal case as well as in departmental proceedings. She contended that both proceedings were based substantially on the same allegations, witnesses and evidence.

She approached the high court seeking quashing of a July 22 order and a stay on the departmental inquiry until the criminal case pending before the additional district and sessions judge, Bhind, was decided.

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Nirmal Sharma argued that allowing both proceedings to continue simultaneously could prejudice her defence in the criminal case.

On the other hand, representing the State, government advocate Monika Mishra opposed the plea, arguing that criminal and departmental proceedings are distinct and can ordinarily proceed simultaneously because they involve different standards of proof.

Criminal case does not bar inquiry: Order

The court noted that departmental proceedings may be stayed in appropriate cases where the criminal case is based on identical facts and involves grave and complicated questions of law and fact. However, such a stay is not automatic and depends on the facts of each case.

Emphasising that the scope, object, and standard of proof in both proceedings are distinct, the court said, “Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that initiation of criminal action during pendency of departmental inquiry is impermissible cannot be sustained.”

The court found that there was no material showing that continuation of the departmental proceedings would prejudice her defence in the criminal case. It also found no evidence that the matter involved such complicated questions of law and fact as to warrant a stay.

Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court reiterated that the standard of proof differs: criminal guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt, while disciplinary findings are based on the preponderance of probabilities.