The decision to stay departmental proceedings during ongoing criminal proceedings depends on the nature of charges, the interest of administration, and the potential prejudice to the defense in the criminal case.

( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer in the Rural Engineering Services of the U. P. Government and was promoted as Assistant Engineer and subsequently given charge of executive Engineer from 14. 7. 1997. He was placed under suspension by the order dated 22. 12. 1998 on grave charges of financial irregularities along with others. An F. I. R. was also filed against him and others at police station Kotwali, Ballia on 19. 2. 1998 vide Annexure-1 to the petition. The petitioner has been charged for embezzlement of an amount of Rs. 34,98. 622. True copy of the F. I. R. is Annexure-2 to the petition. True copy of the suspension order dated 22. 12. 1998 is Annexure-3 and true copy of the charge-sheet is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Thus, both, criminal and departmental proceedings are going on against the petitioner.

( 3 ) IT is alleged in paragraph 18 of the writ petition that both criminal and departmental proceedings are based on identical and similar facts and hence the departmental proceedings should be stayed till the completion of the criminal case. In paragraph 20 of the petition, it is alleged that if departmental proceedings is allowed to continue that will prejudice the petitioner in the criminal case. In paragraph 21, it is alleged that in the criminal proceeding, the charges are to be proved by the prosecution without compelling the accused to give his version while in the departmental proceedings, the petitioner is bound to disclose his version and that will prejudice the petitioner in the criminal case. The petitioner has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Cold Mines Limited and others, 1999 (2) ESC 1009. and has prayed that departmental proceedings be stayed.

( 4 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts in great detail, we are not inclined to stay the departmental proceeding.

( 5 ) THE question whether the departmental proceedings should be stayed when a criminal case is going on the same facts has received the attention of the Supreme Court in several decisions, many of which have been referred to in M. Paul Anthonys case (supra ).

( 6 ) IN Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Kushal Bhan, AIR 1960 SC 806, the Supreme Court observed :

"we cannot say that principles of natural justice require that an employer must wait for the decision at least of the criminal trial court before taking action against an employee. . . . . . We may. however, say that if the case is of a grave nature, or involves questions of law or fact which are not simple, it would be advisable for the employer to await the decision of the trial court so that the defence of the employees in the criminal case may not be prejudiced. "

( 7 ) SIMILARLY in Tata Oil Mills Company Ltd. v. Workmen, AIR 1965 SC 155, the Supreme Court observed :

"it is desirable that if the incident giving rise to a charge framed against a workman in a domestic enquiry is being tried in a criminal court, the employer should stay the domestic enquiry pending the final disposal of the criminal case and it would be particularly appropriate to adopt such a course where the charge against the workmen is of grave character 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. But to say that domestic enquiries may be stayed pending criminal trial is very different from saying that if an employer proceeds with the domestic enquiry in spite of the fact that the criminal trial is pending, the enquiry for that reason alone is vitiated and the conclusion reached in such an enquiry is either bad in law or mala fide. "

( 8 ) IN Kusheshwar v. M/s. Bharat Cokins Coal Ltd. , AIR 1988 SC 2118, the Supreme Court observed :

"there could be no legal bar for simultaneous proceedings being taken, yet, there may be cases where it would be appropriate to defer disciplin