1. The petitioner is working as Constable in Railway Protection Force, Madurai, and his wife gave a complaint before East Police Station, Virudhunagar, on 18.4.2012, against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 323 , 506(i) IPC and read with Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act. The petitioner was also placed under suspension under Schedule III of Railway Protection Force, 1987 and the suspension order was revoked on 25.8.2012 and the fourth respondent was directed to conduct the enquiry into the allegations made in the charge memo. Meanwhile, the Virudhunagar East Police Station also filed a charge sheet in Crime No. 315 of 2012 against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 323 and 506(i) IPC read with Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act. In these circumstances, this writ petition is filed by the petitioner to stay the departmental proceedings pending against the criminal cases filed against him on the basis of the complaint given by his wife.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the basis of the complaint given by his wife a case in Crime No. 315 of 2012 was registered by the Virudhunagar East Police Station for the offences under Sections 323 and 506(i) IPC read with Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act and the charge sheet was also laid against the petitioner for the said offences by the said police station. He further submitted that he was also placed under suspension on the basis of the complaint given by his wife and the perusal of the statement of imputation given against the petitioner would also make it clear that the departmental enquiry was initiated on the basis of complaint given by his wife before the police and therefore having regard to the identity of charges in criminal cases as well as in the departmental proceedings, the departmental proceedings has to be stayed till the disposal of the criminal case. He further submitted that if the departmental proceedings are not stayed it would cause serious prejudice to him and he would not be in a position to defend both case and that would also amount double jeopardy.

3. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the judgment in the Deputy Inspector General of Police and Another v. S. Samuthiram (2013) 1 LW 319 , the Honourable Supreme Court dealt with this aspect of case law and held that the pendency of the criminal case cannot be bar to the initiation of departmental proceedings. Further, in the judgment in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., and Another AIR 1999 SC 1416 : (1999) 3 SCC 679 : (1999) SCC (L&S) 810 , the Honourable Supreme Court laid down the guidelines and as per Guideline No. (i), the Departmental proceedings and criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. It is further stated that in Guideline No. (ii) that if the Departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. In the judgment in State Bank of Hyderabad v. P. Kata Rao (2008) 15 SCC 657 , the Honourable Supreme Court held as follows:

“The legal principle enunciated to the effect that on the same set of facts the delinquent shall not be proceeded in a departmental proceedings and in a criminal case simultaneously, has, however, been deviated from. The dicta of this Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., and Another (supra), however, remains unshaken although the applicability thereof had been found to be dependant on the fact situation obtaining in each case.”

In the judgment Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. M.G. Vittal R