The distinction between departmental proceeding and criminal proceeding, and the discretion to stay the departmental proceeding based on the nature of the charge in the criminal case and its progress.

1. These two Letters Patent Appeals one (L.P.A. No. 1208/99) by the State of Bihar & Ors. and the other (L.P.A. No. 364/2000) by Kanhai Rajak have been filed against the order dated 19.8.1999 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court in C.W.J.C. No. 9842 of 1999, whereby the order of dismissal passed against appellantKanhai Rajak has been kept in abeyance till the disposal of the criminal charge pending against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and he shall be treated as under suspension till he retires or the criminal case is disposed of, whichever is earlier. The State of Bihar is aggrieved by the direction for keeping the order of dismissal in abeyance and appellant Kanhai Rajak is aggrieved by that part of the order, by which his prayer to quash the departmental proceeding on the ground of pendency of the criminal case has been rejected.

2. For the sake of convenience Kanhai Rajak is hereinafter referred to as the appetlant and the State of Bihar as the respondent.

3. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeals are that appellant Kanhai Rajak, at the relevant time, was posted as the Superintending Engineer in the Water Resources Department in the Government of India. On 2.11.1992, Vigilance P.S. Case No. 40 of 1992 was registered against him under sections 5(1), 5(2), 13(2) and 13(e) of the Act on the allegation of his having been found in possession of the property disproportionate to his known source of income. On 9.9.1994, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the appellant with further addition that he had purchased the property without taking permission from the departmental authority. One R.S. Pathak, Chief Engineer, was appointed as the enquiry officer. He called upon the appellant to submit his explanation and the latter submitted his explanation on 21.8.1996. In the meantime, the appellant was put under suspension and that order was upheld by this court, on 31.3.1997, a charge-sheet was submitted in the vigilance case with regard to the allegation of having amassed wealth disproportionate to the known source of income. While the enquiry was pending, the appellant on 1.8.1997 filed an application before the Deputy Secretary, Irrigation, Sichai Bhawan, Patna (not before the enquiry officer) stating therein that in view of the submission of the charge-sheet in the criminal case, no departmental proceeding should be held or action should be taken on the basis of the preliminary report of the Investigating Officer of the vigilance case. A copy of the said application was appended as Annexure 4 to the writ application. According to the appellant, the said application was not considered and after completion of the departmental proceeding, on 27.5.1997 a second show-cause was served upon him asking to show cause as to why he should not be removed from service. A copy of the said notice was appended as Annexure 5 to the writ application.

4. The appellant, challenged the aforesaid second show-cause notice before this court in C.W.J.C. No. 9842 of 1997 and further prayed that the departmental proceeding be stayed till the conclusion of Vigilance Case No. 40 of 1992. While the said writ application was pending, the disciplinary authority passed the final order dismissing the appellant from service on 10.12.1998 and the said order was brought on record by filing an amendment petition as Annexure 8 and a prayer was also made for quashing of the same primarily on the ground that the matter in the departmental proceeding as well as in the criminal case being the same, the departmental proceeding should not have proceeded and the dismissal order should not have been passed during the pendency of the criminal case and the same should have been stayed. He also challenged the order of dismissal on other grounds, including the violation of principle of natural justice.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the order of dismissal wa