JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J.

This order will dispose of two writ petitions i.e. CWP-9486- 2024 filed by Roshan Lal and CWP-12753-2023 filed by Sukhbir as common questions of law and facts arise in both the cases.

2. Challenge in the writ petition bearing No.CWP-9486-2024 is to the order dated 30.03.2024 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.3 vide which regular departmental inquiry has been initiated against the petitioner during the pendency of trial in FIR No.59 dated 22.03.2024 registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at Police Station Saha, District Ambala. Prayer in writ petition bearing No.CWP-12753-2023 is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to take any further action on the departmental proceedings/enquiry/charge sheet dated 30.11.2022 (Annexure P-7A) initiated against the petitioner till the pendency of the criminal trial arising out of FIR No.523 dated 10.10.2022 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC at Police Station Baldev Nagar, District Ambala.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions have submitted that there are common witnesses in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal proceedings and the said common witnesses should not be examined in the departmental proceedings till the time they are examined in the criminal proceedings as in case the said witnesses are examined in the departmental proceedings, then, the same would cause prejudice to the case of the petitioners in the criminal proceedings. In support of the said argument, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as "Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.", reported as 1999(3) SCC 679.

4. Before considering the facts of the present two cases, it would be relevant to note that this Court had after considering the same argument/issue as raised in the present writ petitions, dismissed a bunch of writ petitions i.e. CWP-5111-2024 titled as Mustaq Vs. State of Haryana and others and other connected matters vide judgment dated 10.04.2024. Various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as of this Court were considered and the principles/conclusions which emerged from the said judgments were detailed in para 17 of the judgment dated 10.04.2024 of this Court. Para 17 of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"17. From the above said judgments, the following principles/conclusions emerge: -

5. Various judgments which were relied upon by this Court while passing the judgment dated 10.04.2024, have been detailed in paragraphs 5 to 16 of the said judgment. Paragraphs 5 to 16 of the said judgment are reproduced hereinbelow:-

"5. Before considering the facts of each case, it would be relevant to refer to various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as also the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court, in which the same issue, as has been raised in the present bunch of writ petitions, has been considered and has been adjudicated upon. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Capt M. Paul Anthony's case (supra), which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also in various other judgments of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court, it has been repeatedly held that one of the necessary ingredients for the Court to consider before staying departmental proceedings, with respect to the issue in hand, is whether the case involves complicated questions of law and facts or not. Paragraph 22 of the judgment in Capt M. Paul Anthony's case (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"22. The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are :

A perusal of the above judgment would show that the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering various judgments had drawn the conclusion which was given in the abovesaid paragraph. It was held that the departmental proceedings and the proceedings in the criminal case can proceed simultaneou