The main legal point established in the judgment is that the departmental enquiry should be stayed during the pendency of the criminal case to prevent prejudice to the employee's defense.

1. There are certain issues in law which, even though discussed many times and in myriad forms, call for a fresh consideration each time a problem touching on that has to be addressed. A straight jacket formula moulding everything on a homogeneous cast not being possible the problem frequently surfaces itself in varied context and appearance.

2. A recurrent issue in service jurisprudence is whether a disciplinary proceeding faced by an employee should proceed during the continuance of a criminal proceeding based on the same facts. Views are divergent and vary from case to case. Ultimately, the answer is highly case-specific and must upon a detailed consideration of its whole factual matrix.

3. The immediate context of the prolegomenon is one such case where the oft-discussed issue of service jurisprudence has to be considered in details to appreciate its ramification. But before that it is necessary to consider the factual aspect of the case.

4. The petitioner is an employee of the Railway Protection Force (RPF, for short). By a memo, dated June 22, 2016, issued by the Assistant Security Commissioner, RPF, i.e., the respondent no. 4 herein, the petitioner was informed that an enquiry had been proposed to be held against him. The proposed charges, lists of documents and witnesses were sent to him.

5. The charge against the petitioner was that on March 23, 2016 at about 11 a.m. he came to the RPF post in badly intoxicated condition and started abusing the staff present there in unparliamentary language and created a nuisance. Again, on that very day at about 2.10 p.m. when a senior official was taking his lunch along with other staff, the petitioner went there and hit Mr. Meena, the respondent no. 6, from his back by knife. Mr. Meena sustained bleeding injury on the left side of the back and tried to snatch the knife from the petitioner to save himself but the petitioner again attacked him with knife. This time the respondent no. 6 sustained bleeding injury in his wrist and in both arms. On the next day i.e., March 24, 2016, the respondent no. 6 lodged an FIR in the South Police Station, Asansol, District Burdwan, and a case under Sections 324/326/307/353 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code has been initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner was brought to the Railway hospital for medical check-up where the doctor examined him for ascertaining drunkenness.

6. On April 30, 2016, the prosecution submitted a charge-sheet against the petitioner under Sections 324/307/353 of the Indian Penal Code before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Burdwan at Asansol. It has been alleged in the charge-sheet in the criminal case that on March 23, 2016 at 11 a.m. the petitioner came in a drunken condition and felled bicycle of a staff, abused him and a departmental proceeding has been taken against him. For the said reason, he took revenge against the respondent no. 6 with a knife as a result of which the complainant received injury on his back and left hand.

7. On August 28, 2016, the petitioner submitted a representation against the Memorandum dated June 22, 2016, by which he had denied the charges and requested the authority not to proceed with the departmental proceeding till the finalization of the criminal case. On September 2, 2016, the respondent no. 4 issued a speaking order and intimated his decision to initiate a departmental proceeding, against the petitioner, and enquiry officer was appointed to conduct the same.

8. On September 12, 2016, the petitioner again submitted a further representation to the respondent no. 4 with the similar prayer as made in the earlier representation. On September 19, 2016, the respondent no. 4 issued a letter intimating him the date, time and venue of the departmental enquiry with an advice to attend the same.

9. Finally, on September 22, 2016, the respondent no. 4 informed the petitioner that there was no bar in simultaneously conducting the departmental enquiry against an employee