Swatanter Kumar, C.J.

1. The petitioner was appointed and is presently working as Area Officer, Western Railway, Churchgate, Mumbai. The Central Bureau of Investigation (“C.B.I.”) conducted a raid at Surat Railway Station when the petitioner was working as Area Officer at Surat Railway Station under respondent No.1. In furtherance to the raid, the C.B.I. filed a charge-sheet on 23rd January, 2000 bearing No. RC 2 (A) 2000 GNR in the Gandhinagar Court for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The C.B.I. Investigation conducted against the petitioner disclosed, inter alia, that the refund was granted on tickets on which journey had already been performed, despite its confirmation full refund was granted deducting only Rs. 10/- as clerical charges, tickets were refunded despite bearing the remarks “no refund”, cancellation slips were prepared on plain paper which is contrary to the Railway Rule and that the refunds were issued by Surat Railway Station, while it was not so authorised and that too without verification of addresses and the persons claimed the refund, etc. The criminal trial is pending before the Court of competent jurisdiction. However, no effective proceedings have been taken in these cases, though they are pending now for a period of more than seven years.

2. Respondent No.1 issued a charge-sheet to the petitioner on 6th December, 2002. A copy of the said charge-sheet is annexed at Exhibit-B to the petition. There is some similarity between the allegations made in the charge-sheet and the report filed by the C.B.I. under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, the main thrust of the article of charges served upon the petitioner departmentally is of causing financial loss to the Railways to the extent of Rs. 2,06,143/-, failing to exercise proper supervision and condoning the delay and issuing manual refund which was not permissible at Surat Station in such circumstances. The petitioner filed an application before the Enquiry Officer to stay the proceedings on the ground that the article of charges and the report filed by the C.B. I. were on similar facts and as such the departmental enquiry should be stayed. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. And another, 1999 (3) SCC 679. Vide order dated 27th December, 2006, the representation of the petitioner was rejected by the enquiry officer stating that the enquiry was at the final stage and there was no justification for staying the departmental enquiry. Dissatisfied by the order of the enquiry officer dated 27th December, 2006, the petitioner also filed a representation before the Disciplinary Authority to stay the domestic departmental enquiry till conclusion of the criminal trial on 28th December, 2006. This was also declined and vide order dated 26th February, 2007, the enquiry officer was asked to continue and conclude the departmental enquiry.

3. Aggrieved with the above order, the petitioner filed Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal bearing No. 128 of 2007 on 13th March, 2007. The Tribunal vide its order dated 12th June, 2007, rejected the request of the petitioner. The order of the Tribunal gave the following reasons for declining the request of the petitioner.

“A bare reading of the criminal charge-sheet as well as department charge-sheet makes it clear that the CBI is concerned with the issue from a different angle altogether. The CBI is concerned with the larger issue of criminal conspiracy alleged to have been chalked out by the applicant and some other officers along with some outsiders in defrauding the Railways. Whereas the departmental inquiry is solely concerned with the conduct/misconduct of the applicant in his capac