The main legal point established is the need for prompt conclusion of disciplinary proceedings and the discretion of the tribunal in deciding on the stay of departmental proceedings during a criminal trial.

( 1 ). How long a departmental proceeding should remain stayed pending judgment in a criminal trial is the question involved in these writ petitions, which arise out of judgments and orders dated 1803. 1998 and 28. 07. 1998 passed by the Central Administrative tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, the tribunal ) in the original applications Nos. 3209 of 1992 and 2887 of 1996.

( 2 ). The fact of the matter is being noticed from CWP No. 4116 of 1998. The petitioner was a constable working with Delhi police.

( 3 ). The following charge sheet was issued against him by the additional Commissioner of Police, North-East District, Delhi :-

"it is alleged that Constable Vinod kumar, No. 931/ne posted to Distt. Lines absented himself from duty vide D. D. No. 23 dated 12. 7. 91. Meanwhile an information was received from S. S. P Ghaziabad (U. P.) that Const. Vinod Kumar, No. 931/ne has been arrested along with 4 other persons namely Rishi Pal, Dharambir, Lokendar and vinod Kumar in case FIR No. 280 Crime No. 353, dated 12. 7. 91 U/s 399/402-IPC and 25/54/59 Arms Act, P. S. Kavi Nagar while they were planning to loot a Maruti Van and a Milk Van carrying Cash from Delhi. A knife was also recovered from the possession of Constable Vinod Kumar, No. 931/ne. The above act on the part of Const. Vinod Kumar, No. 931/ne amounts to grave misconduct, lack of integrity which renders him liable for departmental action u/s 21 of delhi Police Act, 1978. "

( 4 ). The contention of the petitioner is that since a criminal proceeding had also been started on the same allegation, unless the departmental proceedings are stayed, the petitioners shall be prejudiced, as they will have to disclose their defence. However, according to the respondents, the allegations in the criminal case and the departmental proceedings are not identical.

( 5 ). The learned Tribunal inter alia observed that having regard to the fact that nearly 6 years have passed, it is difficult to hold that the applicant was yet to disclose defence in the criminal case. The learned Tribunal further having regard to the decision of the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. B. K. Meena and Ors. , JT 1996 8 SC 684 observed that there is no legal bar for simultaneous criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings on the same set of facts. It was further held :-

"10. We also find ourselves in agreement with the learned counsel for the respondents that the allegatidns in the disciplinary enquiry are not exactly the same as those in the criminal case. As is evident from the opening words of the summary of allegations, extracted above, the main charge against the applicant is that he had absented himself from duty on 12. 7. 91, though it is further mentioned that in the meanwhile an information was received from S. S. P. Ghaziabad that the applicant had participated in the commission of a crime. "

( 6 ). Mr Shyam Babu, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, took us through the charges against the petitioner in the departmental proceedings as also in the criminal proceedings and submitted that from a perusal thereof, it would appear that the charges are substantially the same. The learned counsel, however, would contend that if the departmental proceeding is initiated against the petitioners on any charge (s) other than those involved in the criminal proceedings, his client has no objection to appear before the Inquiry Officer. The learned counsel would contend that the learned Tribunal wrongly applied the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in B. K. Meena s case (Supra) inasmuch therein the defence had already been disclosed.

( 7 ). The learned counsel submitted that in the aforementioned situation, the departmental proceedings should be directed to be stayed. Strong reliance in this connection has been placed on Kusheshwar Dubey v. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Ors. , AIR 1988 SC 2118 and Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and An