The petitioner has prayed for directing the respondents to keep in abeyance the departmental proceedings started against him.

2. The facts lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner was charge-sheeted on the ground that he allegedly defalcated a sum of Rs. 2 lacs 73 thousand. The petitioner was put on suspension on 5.2.85 and on 22.5.89 he appeared before the Conducting Officer and demanded supply of papers, records etc. for preparation of his defence. The said documents were allegedly not supplied to him. The petitioner thereafter on 20.6.89 submitted that the departmental proceedings, as against him, be dropped in view of a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kusheshwar Dubey v. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (AIR 1988 SC 2118 : 1989 PLJR (SC) 1).

3. In the case of Kusheshwar Dubey (supra) the Supreme Court has pointed out that there can not be any hard and fast rule for stay of departmental proceedings. According to the Supreme Court the employer should stay a departmental proceeding in the event it is found that the matter of the disciplinary proceeding is a complicated one and it will be difficult for the delinquent employee to disclose his defence pending criminal tria