The main legal point established is that the pendency of a criminal case does not automatically warrant staying the departmental proceeding, and the defense of the employee being prejudiced is not a valid ground for staying the disciplinary proceeding unless the case involves complicated questions of law and fact.

1. In this application prayer of the petitioner is to quash the departmental proceeding pending against him.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present case are that during the relevant time the petitioner was posted as Ranger at Lalganj and it has been alleged that on 11.12.1997, he was caught red handed while accepting a bribe of Rs. 1,500/- from the owner of a truck bearing Registration no. B.H.G. 5222. Accordingly Vigilance Case No. 42 of 1997 was registered against him and he was taken into custody. By order dated 24.1.1998 he was put under suspension. He challenged the same by filing a writ application before this Court; which was registered as C.W.J.C. No. 4916 of 1999 and a learned single Judge of this Court by order dated 16.8.1999 quashed the order of suspension. Thereafter a departmental enquiry was initiated against him and memo of charges (Annexure-4) was served on him. Later on by memo dated 1.12.2000 (Annexure-6) one Sri AshoK Prasad, Conservator of Forest, Gaya Division and Sri Parsuram Ram, Divisional Forest Officer, Patna were appointed as Enquiry and Presenting officers respectively. Charge against the petitioner in the departmental enquiry is that he took bribe of a sum of Rs. 1,500/- which is punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In the criminal case instituted against the petitioner, the allegation is one and the same.

3. Mr. Ravinder Nath Dubey, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the same allegation is the subject matter of trial in Vigilance Case No. 42 of 1997 and for the same allegation departmental proceeding has been initiated against him and as such departmental proceeding is fit to be quashed. I do not find any force in this submission of the learned counsel. Nothing prevents the employer to conduct departmental proceeding in respect of the same allegation which is subject matter of investigation or trial in a criminal case. It is well settled that in a criminal case the charge has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt to record the order of conviction but the same standard of proof is not required for the departmental proceeding. What to talk of pendency, even acquittal in a criminal case does not bar continuance of a departmental proceeding. Reference in this connection can be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nelson Motis V/s. Union of India and another (A.I.R. 1992 SC 1981) wherein it has been held as follows :

"So far the first point is concerned, namely whether the disciplinary proceeding could have been continued in the face of the acquittal of the appellant in the criminal case, the plea has no substance whatsoever and does not merit a detailed consideration. The nature and scope of a criminal case are very different from those of a departmental disciplinary proceeding and an order of acquittal, therefore, cannot conclude the departmental proceeding. Besides, the Tribunal has pointed out that the acts which led to the initiation of the departmental disciplinary proceeding were not exactly the same which were the subject matter of the criminal case."

4. When acquittal in a criminal case does not stand in the way of continuation of departmental proceeding by no stretch of imagination it can be said that its pendency would bar the same.

5. Mr. Dubey then contends that the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner is fit to be stayed till the conclusion of the trial. He points out that charge in the departmental proceeding and Vigilance Case No. 42 of 1997 instituted against him is one and the same and in that view of the matter the departmental proceeding is not fit to be continued. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the order of a Division Bench of this Court dated 9.7.1991 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4009 of 1991 (Annexure-5). In the said case it has been held as follows :

"From a perusal of this writ application and the counter affidavit it appears that the char