The court found that there was no case for issuance of a writ of mandamus to stay the departmental proceedings as the matter was not found to be complicated and the petitioner himself had requested relevant documents for his defense.

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 trial. In the writ application no averment has been made that the matter which is pending departmental proceeding is a complicated one. Further the petitioner himself submitted before the Enquiring Officer and prayed for supply of relevant documents in order to prepare his defence. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, even applying the principles laid down in the case of Kusheshwar Dubey (supra), no case for issuance of a writ of mandamus has been made out. Mr. Priyadarshi, however, has brought to our notice an order of this Court dated 22.3.90 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8251 of 1989 wherein a Bench of this Court directed disposal of the criminal case in which the petitioner is also a party. We have no doubt in our mind that the learned Sessions Judge before whom the criminal case, as against the petitioner, is pending shall in terms of the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8251 of 1989 aforesaid dispose of the criminal case at an early date. However, it is directed that the State shall pay the legal dues of the petitioner at an early date.

4. This application is dismissed with this direction as indicated above.