( 1 ) THE petitioner was working as a Junior Assistant with the Gujarat Electricity Board. At the relevant time be was serving at Kapadwanj. Against him F. T. R. is lodged for the offences punishable under Secs. 409 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has been suspended by an order dated 9-2-1986 pending departmental enquiry. Thereafter the respondent initiated departmental enquiry against the petitioner for which charge-sheet was given on 22/05/1987 The petitioner relied that as he was mentally not well therefore he was not in a position to reply to the said show cause notice and one months time be granted to him for submitting reply. That letter is Annexure F to this petition. Again by letter dated 27-6-1987 he asked for further time. Thereafter the petitioner has filed this petition wherein it has been prayed that respondent No. 1 be directed not to hold any departmental enquiry against the petitioner on the basis of the charge-sheet Annexure C till the final disposal of the criminal case and its investigation.

( 2 ) NOTICE was issued to the other side. In response to the notice on behalf of the respondent-Board an affidavit-in-reply is filed by the Superintending Engineer. It has been pointed out that the petitioner was not co-operating in the enquiry. It is submitted that there is no bar for holding departmental enquiry till the criminal trial is over. Reliance is placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of Motising v. S. D. Mehta AIR 1966 Gujarat 233: (1966 GLR 409 ).

( 3 ) AT the time of hearing of this petition Mr. Desai learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner vehemently admitted that at present the criminal prosecution is pending before the judicial Magistrate First Class at Kapadwanj and the matter is adjourned to 23/03/1988 for framing of the charge the allegation against him is for misappropriation of the amount of Rs. 46 0 therefore pending criminal trial further proceedings in departmental enquiry should be stayed. He submitted that on identical facts if the departmental enquiry is held it would cause prejudice to the petitioner.

( 4 ) AS against this learned Advocate Mr. Farooqui vehemently submitted that since 1987 departmental enquiry is pending the petitioner sought some time for filing reply to the charge-sheet and thereafter he has approached this Court. He submitted that if the department is permitted to hold the departmental enquiry then it could be finalised within three months. Me further relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kusheshwar Dubey v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd 1988 (4) SCC 319.

( 5 ) IN the aforesaid case of Kusheshwar Dubey (supra) after-considering the previous decision of the Supreme Court the Court arrived at the conclusion that there could be no legal bar for simultaneous proceedings of departmental enquiry and criminal trial being taken. The relevant discussion is as under:"the view expressed in the three cases of this Court seems to-support-the position that while there could be no legal bar for simultaneous proceedings being taken yet there may be cases where it would be appropriate to defer disciplinary proceedings awaiting disposal of the criminal case. In the latter class of cases it would be open to the delinquent employee to seek such an order of stay or injunction from the Court Whether in the facts and circumstances of a Particular case there should or should not be such simultaneity of the proceedings should then receive judicial consideration and the Court will decided in the given cirumstances of a particular case as to whether the disciplinary proceedings should be interdicted pending criminal trial. As we have already stated that it is neither possible nor advisable to evolve a hard and fast straitjacket formula valid for all cases and of general application without regard to the particularities of the individual situation. For the disposal of the present case we do not think it necessary to say anything mo