The distinct jurisdictional areas of criminal and departmental proceedings, the standard of proof required, and the desirability of expeditious disposal of departmental proceedings.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the proposed departmental proceedings initiated against him in respect of which a criminal case is pending.

( 2 ). The petitioner is alleged to have demanded/received a bribe and was caught by the raiding party of the CBI. A criminal case has been filed against the petitioner.

( 3 ). The respondents have proceeded departmently against the petitioner and issued a statement of articles of charge as annexed to the memorandum dated 6/08/2001. It would be relevant to reproduced para 2 of the said statement of charges,

"by the above acts, Sh. Brahama Prakash Kalra demanded anillegal gratification of Rs. 2,200. 00 (Rupees two thousand two hundred only) from Sh. Rajinder kumar Sethi and took the same from the said Sh. Rajinder Kumar Sethi. Thereby, he committed an act of misconduct in terms of Rules 5 (2) of the ntpc, CDA Rules, 1976. He also failed to maintain absolute integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of a public servant and thereby, he violated rules 4 (1) (i) and 4 (1) (iii) of the above said Rules. "

( 4 ). Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that both the criminal case and the departmental proceedings are based on some facts i. e. raid and recovery conducted against the petitioner. Learned Counsel further contends that the witnesses are the same. The same charges are being investigated both in the criminal Court and by the Departmental Authority and the proceedings before the departmental Authority will be prejudicial to the defence of the petitioner in the criminal case. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the procedure adopted by the raiding party and the criminal action taken against him; is in violation of the provisions of Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

( 5 ). Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Supreme court in Copt. M. Paulanthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Another, in (1999) SLT 381= (1999) 3 SCC 679, and referred to para 13 of the judgment as under: "as we shall presently see, that is consensus of judicial opinion amongst the high Courts whose decisions we do not intend to refer to in this case, and the various pronouncements of this Court, which shall be copiously referred to, on the basis of principle that proceedings in a criminal case and the departmental proceedings can proceed simultaneously with a little exception. As we understand, the basis for this proposition is that proceedings in a criminal case and the departmental proceedings operate in distinct and different jurisdictional areas. Whereas in the departmental proceedings, where a charge relating to misconduct is being investigated, the factors operating in the mind of the Disciplinary Authority may be many such as enforcement of discipline or to investigate the level of Integrity of the delinquent or the other staff, the standard of proof required in a criminal case. While in the departmental proceedings the standard of proof is one of prepondence of the probabilities in a criminal case, the charge has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The little exception may be where the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common without there being a variance. "

( 6 ). Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the case of the petitioner would fall within the category of "little exception" and thus is entitled to protection against the continuation of departmental proceedings. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also referred to paragraphs 14, 15,16 and 17 of the aforesaid judgment where ratio of different judgments have been discussed in respect of proceedings against the employees simultaneously being carried on both in the criminal Court and before the Disciplinary Authority.

( 7 ). Mr. Taneja learned Senior Counsel for the respondents on the other hand, has contended that there is no bar to t