JUDGMENT :

B.S. Chauhan C.J.

1. This Writ Petition has been filed for quashing the Order Dated 3.7.2008 (Annex-5) passed by the Enquiry Officer rejecting the application for stay of departmental proceedings till disposal of criminal case.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the case are that the Petitioner, who is a process server in the Court of S.D.J.M., Chhatrapur had been served a charge sheet dated 2 9.9.2007 by the District Judge, Ganjam-Gajapati, Berhampur containing four charges. Charge No. 1 is that Petitioner appeared before Sri Bijaya Kumar Patra, Sheristadar in-charge of the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Chatrapur at about 5.30 P.M. on 13.7.2007 in a state of intoxication and abused him in filthy language, caught hold his neck, mishandled with him and torned his shirt as a result Bijaya Kumar Patra fell down. Petitioner intimidated Shri Patra and threatened to kill him when he would go outside.

3. Charge No. II relates to for not serving notices handed over to the Petitioner, 64 in number to be served upon the concerned parties pertaining to I.R.E. Beat on 9.7.2007 returnable by 21.7.2007.

4. Charge No. III related to the fact that the Petitioner remained absent without submitting leave applications.

5. Charge No. IV related to submitting of leave applications from time to time and leaving the headquarter without waiting for the sanction of the leave and going out without furnishing the address as a result of which no official correspondence could be made with him. Notice dated 20.8.2007 could not be served upon him, thus it was published in the daily newspaper 'Anupam Bharat' on 22.8.2007 which incurred unnecessary expenses on the State Exchequer.

6. In respect of the first charge i.e. incident dated 13.7.2007, criminal prosecution has also been launched against the Petitioner in G.R. Case No. 242 of 2007, which is pending consideration before the competent Criminal Court.

7. In view of the above, the Petitioner submitted an application before the Enquiry Officer to adjourn the proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal trial which has been rejected by the impugned order. Hence this petition.

8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that law does not permit continuation of Disciplinary Proceedings and the criminal trial simultaneously on the same facts and charges. Petitioner cannot be forced to disclose his defence in such proceedings as it would prejudice his case in criminal trial. Therefore, the Disciplinary Proceedings have to be stayed.

9. On the other hand, Mr. P.K. Khuntia, Learned Addl. Government Advocate has submitted that in Disciplinary Proceedings, there are four charges against the Petitioner and each of them are of serious nature. Remaining absent without any leave is vital. He had proceeded without waiting for the sanction of his leave, without furnishing his address and thus no notice could be served upon him. Therefore, publication in the newspaper had to be made for calling him back which incurred huge expenses on public exchequer. More so, the above criminal case is of not such complicated nature that Departmental Proceeding should be stayed. Therefore, the petition is liable to be rejected.

10. We have considered the rival submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

11. It is settled legal proposition that there is no prohibition for holding Disciplinary Proceedings simultaneously with the criminal trial for the reason that in a criminal case, standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt, while in a domestic enquiry, standard of proof for proving the charges is probability of preponderances. There is no bar even to hold enquiry after acquittal of delinquent in a criminal case. (Vide Nelson Motis Vs. Union of India and another, ; State of Karnataka and Another Vs. T. Venkataramanappa, ; Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Pathanamthitta and Others Vs. A. Gopalan, ; State of AP v. K. Allabakash; Ajit Kumar Nag Vs. General Manager (P.J.