The main legal point established in the judgment is that the degree of proof, purpose, and objectives of departmental proceedings and criminal prosecution are distinct, and continuing departmental proceedings during the pendency of a criminal trial is not necessarily prejudicial.

( 1 ) ON 26. 4. 2003 the petitioner was placed under suspension on the charges of bigamy. The petitioner challenged the suspension order which was stayed in a writ jurisdiction. On the basis of the preliminary inquiry conducted by the department, the petitioner was charge-sheeted on 16. 6. 2004 on the charges of bigamy. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the quashing of the charge-sheet dated 16. 6. 2004 issued by the disciplinary authority on the ground that the same was based on a criminal complaint filed in the year 2000 which is pending in the court of Additional Judicial Magistrate, Meerut under Sections 420, 494, 406 and 500 of the indian Penal Code.

( 2 ) THE petitioner alleges that the subject matter of the charge-sheet in the domestic inquiry proceedings and that pending before the Criminal Court is one and the same and further contended that the evidence in both the proceedings would be the same and that if the departmental proceedings are allowed to continue he would be prejudiced in the proceedings before the Criminal Court.

( 3 ) HEARD Sri S. P. Pandey, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. K. Rai, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the departmental proceedings and the criminal proceedings are based on the same facts and that the documents relied upon would be the same, it would be appropriate that the departmental proceedings be kept in abeyance till the decision of the criminal court.

( 5 ) ON the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the criminal proceedings are entirely different from the domestic proceedings and that the purpose of the departmental inquiry was merely to help the department to come to a definite conclusion regarding the conduct of the delinquent and the penalty that could be imposed upon him if the charges were found to be correct. The respondents further submitted that there was no bar for holding the departmental proceedings during the pendency of the criminal trial and it was for the disciplinary authority to decide whether in a given case it should keep a domestic inquiry pending till the outcome of the criminal trial or not. In the present case the petitioner has not approached the disciplinary authority and has straight away come to this Court.

( 6 ) IT is a well settled principle of law that the degree of proof required in a departmental inquiry is vastly different than the degree of proof required to prove a criminal charge. In the departmental inquiry the finding can be recorded in preponderance of probabilities and it is not necessary that the charge must be proved to the hilt. The departmental proceedings and the criminal proceedings are entirely different in nature. They operate in different fields and they have different objectives. The materials or the evidence in the two proceedings may or may not be the same and, in some cases, at least, materials or evidence which would be relevant or open for consideration in the departmental proceeding, may be irrelevant in the criminal proceeding. The Rules relating to the appreciation of the evidence in the two inquiries may also be different. The standard of proof, the mode of enquiry and the rules governing the enquiry and the trial in both the cases are entirely distinct and different.

( 7 ) THE law is well settled that the inquiry officer can come to a different conclusion than arrived at by a criminal court and that it is immaterial whether the charges were identical or the witnesses were the same, as long as the power exercised by the criminal court and the inquiry under the relevant law and the service law was distinct and separate. There is no bar for holding a disciplinary proceeding during the pendency of the trial though the basis may be one and the same. It is for the disciplinary authority to decide as to whether in a given case it should keep the domestic inquiry pendi