When two proceedings are initiated upon the same set of facts, both cannot be allowed to go on simultaneously. The fact that the trial in the criminal case has not yet commenced does not mean that there is no criminal case pending against the delinquent official because any defence taken or evidence adduced by the delinquent official in the disciplinary proceeding can very well be used in the criminal trial. Therefore, the disciplinary proceeding ought to have been stayed pending disposal of the criminal case.

( 1 ) AT the stage of admission, the respondents have been notified. Accordingly they have put in appearance. As the appeal lies in a very narrow compass, it is admitted and heard for final disposal.

( 2 ) THIS appeal is preferred against the order dated 15th november, 1991 passedby the learned single judge in writ petition no. 22356 of 1991. In the writ petition, the petitioner-appellant has sought for a writ in the nature of prohibition prohibiting the respondents from proceeding further with the departmental inquiry initiated against him and further to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directions quashing the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. The learned single judge, after referring to a decision of the Supreme Court in kusheshwar dubey v M/s. Bharat coking coal ltd. And others, AIR 1988 SC 2118 : 1988 (2) LLJ 470 is of the view that in the instant case, the petitioner-appellant has not brought to the notice of the court any particular circumstance to indicate as to how the petitioner would be prejudiced if the disciplinary proceedings were to go on simultaneously. Accordingly, the learned single judge has declined to grant the relief and rejected the writ petition. Hence, the petitioner-appellant has come up with this appeal.

( 3 ) THE contention of the appellant is that on the same set of facts, there are threeproceedings initiated simultaneously against him, viz. , a disciplinary proceeding, a criminal proceeding and a civil suit. Further, it is contended that a charge memo was served upon the petitioner-appellant on 2-5-1987 and on 27-2-1988 an additional charge-memo was served upon him; that on a complaint, the police have investigated the matter and filed 'b' summary report on 8-5-1987 and thereafter, the 1st respondent has filed an application under section 173, cr. P. c. on 27-2-1989; and that on 26-2-1989, a suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,11,103-37 ps. On the same charges. The averments made in the application filed under section 173, cr. P. c. produced as annexure 'a' in the writ petition, are identical with the averments made in the suit. A copy of the plaint is also produced as annexure 'b\ 3. 1. As already pointed out, the suit is for recovery of a sum of rs, 4,11,103-37 ps. The averments made in paras 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 of the plaint are similar to the averments made in the application filed under section 173, cr. P. c. similarly, the charges framed against the appellant in the disciplinary proceeding are also based on the same set of facts. Therefore, in order to illustrate the nature of the charges or the nature of the criminal case or the nature of the civil suit, it would be sufficient for us if we refer to the averments contained in the application filed under section 173, cr. P. c. , which are as follows: "3 (a) during the audit of accounts at agro kendra, afzalpur, for the period from 1-4-1984 to 2-4-1986, it was noticed that he had fictitiously raised following credit bills in the name of the assistant director of agriculture, afzalpur and fraudulently charged off stocks in the stock ledger worth of Rs. 10,355-00:he has neither forwarded the records to the controlling office, district sales office, gulbarga, for accounting purpose not informed the recovery position. He had intentionally misused the stock worth of Rs. 36,478/- and misappropriated the said amount for which the accused is held responsible. He had also issued inputs stock worth of Rs. 2,600/- as per the credit bill 35389/14-10-1985 raised by him in the name of divisional forest office, gulbarga. But he has not furnished the details of amount collected from the department and remitted to corporation account. He had kept the district sales office, gulbarga, in dark and misused the stock and misappropriated the amount. B) he had fictitiously charged of following stock in the stock ledgers and without any issues of stock to the extent of Rs. 38,600-00