B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.

1. The appellant is the unsuccessful petitioner in W.P.No.3283 of 2016 maintained against the respondents 1 and 2. The impugned order of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.3283 of 2016, dated 08-3-2016, reads from the conclusion para that:-

“13. In the instant case also since criminal complaint lodged by the respondent corporation is at the stage of investigation, it cannot be said that prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if he participates in the domestic enquiry. Therefore, it is not a case where the domestic enquiry should be stalled. The prayer sought for petitioner cannot be granted. However, if the investigation in Crime No.299 of 2015 results in filing of charge sheet and domestic enquiry is not completed before the charge sheet is filed, it is open to the petitioner to apply to the disciplinary authority to stay the domestic enquiry till the criminal case is disposed of. It is also made clear that any statement made by the petitioner during the course of the domestic enquiry cannot be used against the petitioner in the criminal proceedings and cannot be treated as disclosure of material evidence by the petitioner.

14. Subject to above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Having regard to the same, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, are closed.”

2. Present appeal filed against the impugned order is with the contentions from the grounds of appeal as well as the oral submissions by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned single Judge erred in not appreciating the facts that in similar set of facts in P. Venka Reddy v. Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, 2009 (6) ALD 111 a single Judge of this Court was pleased to hold that, when the material allegations in the criminal case and departmental charge are one and the same and material witnesses are also one and the same, allowing the departmental enquiry would cause prejudice to him as accused in the criminal case. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant referring to another judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in C.G. Manager, Telecom District (BSNL) v. R.B. Ravi Shankar [2014 (1) ALD 751 (DB)], particularly from para 11 that if the acts and omissions of the employee, which gave rise to prosecution, would also constitute acts of misconduct, the charges must be framed by the disciplinary authority almost simultaneously with the prosecution. It is a different matter that in case the subject-matter of the criminal case and departmental proceedings is similar or identical, further steps in the departmental proceedings cannot be taken till the conclusion of the criminal case, lest the employee is compelled to disclose his probable defence in the criminal case. Therefrom, the learned counsel contended that the Security Head Guard Satyanarayana, who in collusion with the other, allowed the scrap vehicle in the absence of appellant and theft of items so alleged in the complaint, but no action was taken against him nor any preliminary enquiry was conducted before the appellant being charge sheeted and suspended from service to find out the persons responsible. It is the submission therefrom that the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge is unsustainable and sought for setting aside the same. It is also prayed for interim stay of the departmental enquiry pending disposal of the writ appeal.

3. Whereas, it is the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC) that the order of the learned single Judge is a reasoned one and also in tune to the expression of the 3-judge bench of the apex Court in NOIDA Entrepreneurs Assn. v. NOIDA and Ors. [AIR 2007 SC 1161] that was also reiterated in the subsequent expression of the apex Court in DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND ANOTHER v. S.SAMUTHIRAM [(2013) 1 SCC 598] and thereby it is not from identicality of the facts involved and same witnesses shown in both the