1. Heard Sri C.Kodandaram, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri B.Anjaneyulu, the learned counsel appearing for respondents.

2. The appellant in this writ appeal is the petitioner in Writ Petition No.16546 of 2010. He filed that writ petition for declaring the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by the first respondent [Managing Director of the Food Corporation of India (FCI)] through his memorandum dated 15.04.2010 and other consequential proceedings dated 25.05.2010 and a preliminary enquiry proceedings dated 06.07.2010 of the fourth respondent as illegal on the ground of pendency of the criminal case i.e. C.C.No.35 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for CBI cases at Hyderabad (criminal court) against him. His plea is both the departmental enquiry and as well the criminal case are based on identical facts and evidence and the charges in the criminal case involve complicated questions of law and fact and therefore the departmental enquiry is illegal or in any event they have to be stayed or postponed till the disposal of the criminal case as the findings in it will clinch the matter one way or the other. He also raised the plea of prejudice factor which is highlighted by his counsel.

3. Along with the writ petition, the appellant filed WPMP No.20855 of 2010 for interim stay of the departmental proceedings pending disposal of the writ petition. The learned single Judge by his order dated 29.07.2010 dismissed that miscellaneous petition. It is questioning that order the appellant has come up with this writ appeal. One Sri M.M.Vijay Manohar working as Assistant General Manager (Civil) in the FCI at Hyderabad filed counter affidavit on behalf of all respondents. At the time of arguments both sides agreed that this court can dispose of the writ petition itself as the arguments in the miscellaneous petition, writ appeal and the writ petition are same. That is how we have taken up both the matters for disposal.

4. The point in the writ petition (main matter) is whether the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the respondents (all officials of FCI) should be set aside as illegal, or stayed, or ordered to be postponed till the disposal of C.C.No.35 of 2007 in the criminal court.5. Both sides argued the matter at length and hence an elaborate order has become necessary. Hereinafterwards, for convenience, we shall refer to the parties as they are arrayed in the writ petition.

6. At the relevant time, the petitioner Sri A.Ravinder was working as area manager of the FCI, Nizamabad in Andhra Pradesh. On the report/complaint of one J.S.S.Rambabu a contractor of the FCI, the Inspector of CBI, Hyderabad registered a case on 26.02.2007 in Crime No.RC.6(A)/07-CBI/Hyd under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short PC Act). That offence relates to a charge of demanding bribe roughly of Rs.3 lakhs from the above contractor for releasing certain amount i.e. clearing his bill of Rs.19,20,378/-due to him from the FCI. It is stated in the CBI charge sheet in the aforesaid criminal case that the petitioner demanded the contractor to pay the first instalment of Rs.50,000/-of the above bribe amount in Room No.110 of Central Court Hotel, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad and accordingly a trap was arranged in the said hotel on 26.02.2007 in between 18.45 hrs and 20.30 hrs. According to CBI, that trap was successfully laid with the help of the contractor and the mediators.7. It is not necessary to go into the merits of the trap. It would however be sufficient to note that according to CBI the tainted money/bribe money was recovered from the left side pant pocket of one B.Surender, a friend of the petitioner, and who was also present in the hotel room along with the latter. The CBI’s version is that its investigation disclosed that the petitioner and the aforesaid B.Surender are guilty of offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 109 IPC and Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w S.13(1)(d) of th