S.B.Sinha, J.

1. Prayer of the petitioners in this application is that the departmental proceedings pending against them be quashed and/or stayed pending trial in criminal case. Petitioner No. 1 is a Head Constable and petitioner No. 2 is a Nayak in the Railway Protection Force and posted at Chakradharpur. A first information report (F.I.R) as contained in Annexure -1 to the writ application was lodged alleging, inter alia, that a theft of heavy iron materials of the railway was detected and 16 persons were arrested. During inquiry, the complicity of the petitioners also came to light and it was alleged that the petitioners had taken Rs. 50Q/- from the said thieves so as to enable them to stealthily take away the railway property. They were found covered with blankets in a second-class waiting room and a sum of Rs. 778.00 was recovered from petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 2 also confessed his guilt that he had taken Rs. 500.00 from an outsider,

2. On the basis of the said allegation, apart from lodging a criminal case, departmental proceedings had also been initiated against the petitioners and charge-sheets were issued against them on May 20, 1993 as contained in An-nexures-2 and 271 to the writ application. The petitioners filed a representation on May 29, 1993 that the departmental proceedings be stayed as they were facing criminal cases.

3. Mr. P.S. Dayal, learned Counsel for the petitioners, had submitted that in view of the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in Kusesh-war Dubey V/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., reported in (1988- II-LLJ-470), departmental proceedings as against the petitioners should be stayed.

4. Kuseshwar Dubey s case (supra) arose out of a suit wherein an order of injunction was passed by the learned trial court. In that, case, it was held as follows:-

(PP 471-473) :

"According to Mr. Jain for the appellant, the legal position settled by this Court supported the stand that the disciplinary action had to be stayed till the criminal case was over. He relied upon the decision in The Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. V/s. Kushal Bhan (1960-I-LLJ-520) and Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. V/s. Its Workmen (1964-II-LLJ - 113). He also referred in the course of his submission to the decisions of different High Courts in support of his propositions. Two cases out of the several ones of the High Courts he relied upon are Kusi Ram V/s. Union of India 1974 LIC 553 and Project Manager ONGC V/s. Lal Chand Wazir Chand Chandna 1982(1) SLR 654. Pathak CJ. as he then was in the Himachal case indicated that fair play required the postponing of the criminal trial and Thakkar, J. as our learned brother then was in the Gujarat case had also taken a similar view.

We would like to point out that there are authorities in support of the position that there is nothing wrong in parallel proceedings being taken, one by way of the disciplinary proceeding and the other in the criminal Court. Reference may be made to decision of this Court in Jang Bahadur Singh V/s. Baij Niwari 1969 (1) SCR 134 and some decisions of High Courts, such as, Rama P.C. V/s. Superintendent of Police, Kolar and Anr. 1967 AIR Mys (54) -220, Ali Mohd. and Ors. V/s. Chairman, T. A. and C., Udhampur 1981(2) SLR 225, Moulindra Singh V/s. The Deputy Commissioner and Ors. (1973 LIC (6) 1564) and Shaikh Kasim V/s. Superintendent of Post Office, Chinglepet. (1965-I-LLJ-197 (MDS). Mr. Jain contended that we should settle the law in a straight jacket formula as judicial opinion appeared to be conflicting. We do not propose to hazard such a step as that would create greater hardship and individual situations may not be available to be met and thereby injustice is likely to ensure."

In the Delhi Cloth and General Mills case (supra) it was pointed out by this Court (1960 -I-LLJ-520 at 521):

"It is true that very often employers stay enquiries pending the decision of the criminal trial Courts and that is fair; but we cannot say that principles of natural justice require that