Nirmaljit Kaur, J.

The prayer in the present petition is to stay the disciplinary proceedings in pursuance to the charge-sheet dated 07.02.2014 issued by respondent No.2 till the finalisation of the criminal case pending against the petitioner in the court of Additional District Judge No.2, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No. 78/2013.

2. An FIR was registered against the petitioner while he was working as Constable in Reserve Police Line, Chittorgarh. The FIR was registered against him under Sections 395, 118, 119, 213, 120-B and 414 of the IPC on account of the fact that on 18th July, 2013, he along with other accused stopped the Truck bearing registration No.RJ-14 GB 1844 and after threatening the driver looted the doda chura. The charges were framed against the petitioner in the said criminal case. The petitioner challenged the said order of framing charge before the High Court in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.382/2014. The revision petition was rejected vide order dated 16th April, 2014. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested and is presently lodged in the District Jail at Chittorgarh. Meanwhile, charge-sheet has been issued against the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 on 7th February, 2014. The said charges read as under:-

^^1- ;g fd fnukad 18-07-2013 dks vki vU; O;fDr;ksa ds lkFk feydj Vªd uEcj vkj0ts0 14@th0ch0@1844 dks jksd Vªd esa Hkjs voS/k MksMk pwjk dks ywV dj [kqnZ cqnZ djus o MªkbZoj xqjesy flag o mlds lg;ksxh dk vigj.k dj Hkksikylkxj ds ikl NksM+ fn;k x;kA vki ,d voS/k dkjksckj ,oa vkijkf/kd d`R; esa lafyIr ik;sA tks vkidk d`R; ?kksj ykijokgh dk gSA

2- ;g fd vki ,d yksd lsod gksrs gq, voS/k dkjksckj ,oa vkijkf/kd d`R; esa fyIr ik;s x;sA vkidk drZO; Fkk fd vijk/k dh jksdFkke fd;s tkus gsrq mPp vf/kdkfj;ksa dks lwpuk nsdj dkuwu lEer dk;Zokgh djokuk Fkk tks ugha dh xbZ rFkk vijk/k djus dh ifjdYiuk dks Nqikuk o vijk/k ds izfrQyLo:i migkj ds :i esa :i;s ysuk o pqjkbZ@MdSrh dh gqbZ MksMk pwjk dks [kqnZ cqnZ djus esa vijkf/k;ksa dh lgk;rk dh gSA tks vkidk d`R; M~;wVh ds izfr ykijokgh ,oa uSfrdrk ds izfr xSj ftEesnkjkuk dk d`R; gSA

3- ;g fd fnukad 20-07-2013 dks vki vU; O;fDr;ksa ds lkFk feydj Vªd uEcj vkj0ts0 07@th@3566 dks jksd Vªd esa Hkjs voS/k MksMk pwjk dks ywV dj [kqnZ cwnZ djus o MªkbZoj ukjk;.k yky lkyoh o mlds lg;ksxh dk vigj.k dj mUgsa usofj;k xkao ds vkxs NksM+ fn;k x;kA vki ,d voS/k dkjksckj ,oa vkijkf/kd d`R; esa lafyIr ik;sA tks vkidk d`R; ?kksj ykijokgh dk gSA

4- ;g fd vkids yksdlsod gksrs gq, vkids fo:) xaHkhj nqjkpj.k ds vkijkf/kd izdj.k iathc) gq, ,oa vijkf/k;ksa ls lkaBxkaB dhA ftlls vke turk esa iqfyl dh Nfo /kwfey gqbZA

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while praying for the relief mentioned above contended that the allegations in the charge-sheet issued by the department and the FIR are identical. In case, the petitioner is compelled to disclose his defence in the disciplinary proceedings, he may be prejudiced in the criminal case. The witnesses and the evidence are also same.

4. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen, reported in AIR 1965 SC 155 as well as the judgment in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Anr., reported in AIR 1999 SC 1416.

5. Reply has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the parties are heard.

7. Reliance was placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Tata Oil Miles Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen (supra) to argue that the domestic enquiry should be stayed pending the final disposal of the criminal case because in such a case it would be unfair to compel the workman to disclose the defence which he may take before the criminal court. The said judgment does not help the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner in that case came to the court for quashing of the finding of the Enquiry Officer on the ground that domestic enquiry has proceeded in spite of the pende