Disciplinary proceedings and criminal trials can proceed simultaneously, and a stay is only necessary if the criminal charge is grave and involves complicated questions of fact and law.

I.A. Ansari, J.

1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, disciplinary proceeding, initiated against the Petitioner, needs to be stayed until disposal of the criminal prosecution launched against him is the question, which has arisen in the present writ petition. This question brings me, in fact, to the present question, namely, as to what principles govern stay of disciplinary proceedings, when there is a criminal case pending against a delinquent on the same set of facts.

2. I have heard Mr. S. Talapatra, learned Senior counsel, for the Petitioner, and Mr. P. K. Biswas, learned Central Govt. counsel, appearing on behalf of the Respondents.

3. Before I deal with the questions posed above, let me, set out, in brief, the material facts and various stages, which have led to the presentation of the present writ petition:

(i) When the Petitioner was functioning as Cashier in the office of the Deputy Director of Small Industries Service Institute (in short, 'the SISF) at Agartala, an FIR was lodged, on 30.7.2000, at Agartala police station, by the Deputy Director of SISI alleging to the effect, inter alia, that the informant had been on leave and out of station with effect from 8.7.2000 to 24.7.2000, he rejoined office on 25.7.2000 and, in the afternoon of 30.7.2000, he came to know from the present Petitioner that the Petitioner had withdrawn, out of the accounts of his office, maintained as State Bank of India, H.G. Basak Road Branch, Agartala, an amount of Rs. 6,87,072/- by forging the informant's signature on a cheque drawn for the said amount and the cheque book was also recovered from the custody of the Petitioner. Based on this FIR, West Agartala Police Station Case No. 144/2000 under Sections468/471/420/409 IPC was registered. During investigation, one Satya Sarkar, a class-IV employee, working at the office of the SISI, was arrested and interrogated by the police. Following Satya Sarkar's arrest, the Petitioner surrendered in the Court; but he was taken on remand to police custody and interrogated by the police. During the course of investigation, the cheque (s), in question, and other relevant documents were seized and, on completion of investigation, police laid charge-sheet, on 30.12.2001, against the present Petitioner under Sections 468/471/420/409 IPC and against the said Satya Sarkar under Sections 468/471/420/409/411 IPC. By Memorandum, dated 28.6.2006, the disciplinary authority drew a disciplinary proceeding against the Petitioner on the three articles of charge, (ii) The Petitioner submitted, on 11.7.2006, his written statement, in defence, wherein he denied that he had committed any forgery and/or withdrawn any amount from the bank and/or misappropriated the same and/or made any statement, confessing or admitting his guilt, with regard to the accusations made against him. Along with his written statement aforementioned, the Petitioner also submitted, on 11.7.2006 itself, a representation to the disciplinary authority praying for stay of the disciplinary proceeding on the ground that a criminal case was pending against him on the same set of facts based on which the disciplinary proceeding had been drawn and that further progress of the disciplinary proceeding would adversely affect his defence in the trial of the criminal case inasmuch as disclosure of his defence, at the disciplinary proceeding, would cause serious prejudice to him. Notwithstanding the representation, dated 11.7.2006, so made by the Petitioner, the disciplinary authority passed an order, on 17.7.2006, detailing an enquiry officer for making enquiry into the charges framed against the Petitioner and also appointed a presenting officer in this regard. Following the appointments so made, the Enquiry Officer issued, 27.7.2006, a notice to the Petitioner directing him to attend the proceeding, which was to commence on 21.8.2006. Aggrieved by the notice of hearing so issued, the Petitioner is, now, before this Court with th