Holding that a departmental inquiry against an employee need not be put on hold merely because a criminal case arising from the same incident is pending, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that both proceedings can ordinarily continue at the same time.“Mere pendency of a criminal case does not, by itself, justify the suspension of departmental proceedings,” Justice Harpreet Singh Brar ruled.The court further clarified that a stay would be justified only in exceptional cases where continuing the departmental inquiry was likely to seriously prejudice the employee’s defence in the criminal trial. Dismissing a writ petition challenging an inquiry report, Justice Brar observed: “There is no absolute embargo on the simultaneous continuation of departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings. Both may proceed concurrently, albeit independently, as they operate in distinct fields and serve different purposes.”Justice Brar held that the mere pendency of a criminal case did not, by itself, justify the suspension of departmental proceedings. A criminal prosecution determined criminal culpability under penal law, whereas a departmental inquiry examined whether an employee’s conduct amounted to “misconduct or a breach of the obligations arising under the applicable service rules, thereby warranting disciplinary action”.Justice Brar asserted, “The standards of proof, nature of evidence, and objectives governing the two proceedings are fundamentally different.”The decisive consideration was “whether the continuation of the disciplinary inquiry is likely to cause serious prejudice to the delinquent employee in effectively defending himself in the criminal trial”, a determination that “must necessarily depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case”.The court held that the departmental authority was competent to proceed independently, notwithstanding the pendency of a criminal case arising out of the same transaction, “unless exceptional circumstances are shown to exist”.The matter was placed before Justice Brar’s Bench after the petitioner sought quashing of the inquiry report dated November 25, 2025, alleging that it was arbitrary, mala fide, perverse and violative of the principles of natural justice. Alternatively, he sought a direction that a fresh inquiry be conducted only after conclusion of the criminal trials arising from two FIRs registered on February 6 and 7, 2023.The first FIR was registered against the petitioner. The other was registered at the petitioner’s behest against the complainant and other persons connected with the first FIR.Referring to the petitioner’s submission that the departmental proceedings ought to have been deferred till the conclusion of the criminal trials, Justice Brar ruled that the contention was devoid of merit. “As noticed, it is a settled proposition of law that criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings operate in different fields and are governed by different standards of proof,” Justice Brar observed.Before parting with the order, the Bench asserted it did not find ground to interfere with the impugned inquiry report “in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India”.