The main legal point established in the judgment is that there is no hard and fast rule for staying departmental proceedings during a criminal trial. The advisability, desirability, or propriety of staying the departmental proceedings is to be determined in each case, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case.

S. K. Singh, J.—By means of this writ petition, prayer has been made by the petitioner, commanding the respondents not to proceed further with the departmental proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to the letters dated 6.7.2001 and 10.7.2001 issued by the Enquiry Officer/Senior Manager till the conclusion of the Criminal Case No. 47 of 2001, State v. Ram Nazar Dubey pending in the Court of Special Judge (P. C. Act), Lucknow. A further prayer is that respondents be commanded not to compel the petitioner to participate in the departmental proceedings on the basis of the charge-sheet dated 5.7.2001 till the conclusion of the criminal case. By an amendment application petitioner has also challenged the decision of the Managing Director/Respondent No. 1 dated 1.2.2002 rejecting petitioner’s claim for staying departmental proceedings.

2. As pleadings between the parties are complete, as prayed from both sides, matter is being heard and finally decided.

3. The question which has been raised and is involved in this petition relates to the situation and circumstances for staying the departmental disciplinary proceedings during the pendency of the criminal trial.

4. Petitioner having been appointed on the post of Clerk-cum-Typist on 26.2.1979 in the office of the U. P. State Handloom Corporation Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the Corporation, on being promoted from time to time has been working on the post of Office Superintendent from 11.4.1998, as has been stated in the writ petition. It is said that petitioner was working as Incharge of the U. P. Handloom Sales Depot, Malleshwaran, Bangalore (Karnataka) had gone on casual leave from 6.11.1993 to 8.11.1993 and thereafter on medical leave from 9.11.1993 to 25.1.1994. After availing the casual leave/medical leave when petitioner came back to join his services on 26.1.1994, he came to know that he has been transferred to Siliguri on 31.12.1993. It is stated that on 17.1.1994 a fire had taken place in the show room of the Sales Depot, Malleshwaran and due to the said fire lot of damage took place for which an F.I.R. had been lodged against several persons. Besides the aforesaid F.I.R. the matter is said to have been investigated by the U. P. Vigilance Cell who has submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner and one U. S. Tewari vide charge-sheet No. 2/2001 dated 5.7.2001 upon which a criminal trial is going on. It is stated that as soon as the Vigilance Cell, Kanpur, has submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner in the Court of Special Judge (P. C. Act) on 5.7.2001 Senior Manager/Enquiry Officer of the Corporation sent a letter to the petitioner stating that now departmental enquiry against the petitioner is to be proceeded and hence petitioner was directed to appear before the Enquiry Officer and to participate in the enquiry proceedings. It is the direction of the departmental authority to participate in the departmental proceedings, which has made the petitioner aggrieved to come up to this Court. At the time when the writ petition was entertained, this Court directed Respondent No. 1 to consider the petitioner’s application about the stay of the departmental enquiry and to pass speaking order, upon which order has been passed on 1.2.2002 rejecting the petitioner’s prayer, which too has been challenged by way of amendment application.

5. Heard Sri O. P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shiv Nath Singh, learned advocate who appeared on behalf of the respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the facts of the present case, it is clear that both proceedings of the criminal trial and the departmental proceedings are based on the same set of facts and on the same charges and, therefore, it is for the departmental authority to stay their hands in the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal trial. Learned counsel has taken the Court to the charges as are against the petitioner in the departmental charge-