JUDGMENT :

Prafulla C. Pant, J.

This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 18.7.2008, passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh, whereby said Court has dismissed the Civil Writ Petition No. 12307 of 2008, filed by the appellant, and declined to interfere with the order of her dismissal from service.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record.

3. Brief facts of the case are that appellant Baljinder Pal Kaur was Assistant Sub Inspector with Punjab Police. She was dismissed from service vide order dated 18.5.2005, after departmental enquiry was held and she was found guilty of charge that she took L 8.00 lacs from one Gurjit Singh son of Bahadur Singh of District Ludhiana, and got him sent illegally to United States of America, with her husband Sukhdev Singh @ Sukha and three others.

4. From the papers on record, it reveals that apart from initiation of departmental enquiry, a First Information Report No. 81 was registered against the appellant on 16.12.2003 with Vigilance Bureau, Ludhiana, in respect of offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Section 13(i)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After investigation charge sheet was filed against her in the court. Meanwhile, in the departmental enquiry, statements of witnesses of the department, and that of defence produced on behalf of the appellant, were recorded by the Enquiry Officer, who submitted his report dated 8.9.2004 (Annexure P-2) with the finding that the appellant was guilty of the charge. An opportunity of hearing was granted to the appellant also before awarding the punishment of dismissal. The departmental appeal was dismissed on 15.12.2005 (Annexure P-4), as mentioned above, whereafter the appellant availed remedy of filing revision before Inspector General of Police, Jalandhar, and the same was dismissed by said authority on 8.5.2006 (Annexure P-5). Thereafter, a mercy petition was filed by the appellant before the Director General of Police, without any success.

5. On the other hand, the criminal trial proceeded before the Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana, in which the appellant was ultimately acquitted vide order dated 23.2.2007.

6. It is argued before us on behalf of the appellant that after acquittal of the appellant by the trial court, the High Court has erred in law in not allowing the writ petition seeking quashing of dismissal of the appellant from service. Reliance is placed by learned counsel for the appellant on the decisions of this Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another, 1999(2) S.C.T. 660 : (1999) 3 SCC 679, G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat and others, 2006(3) S.C.T. 252 : (2006) 5 SCC 446, and Jasbir Singh v. Punjab & Sind Bank and others, 2007(1) S.C.T. 57 : (2007) 1 SCC 566.

7. In paragraph 22 of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra), this Court has culled out following principles :-

"(i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately.

(ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case.

(iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge-sheet.

(iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given