JUDGMENT :

Siddhartha Varma, J.

The petitioners have challenged the departmental charge-sheet dated 27.11.2021 on the ground that the charges in the departmental proceedings were the same to the charges which were framed in the criminal case which arose from case crime No. 121 of 2021, under Section 384/211 I.P.C. alongwith the added Sections 120-B, 167, 211, 323, 342, 379, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Etah.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Coal Mines Ltd., AIR 1999 SC 1416 and State Bank of India and others v. R.B. Sharma, (2004) 7 SCC 27, submitted that simultaneously both criminal and civil proceedings against them could not be undergone. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon a decision of this Court in Dhirendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P. and others passed in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 2705 Of 2012 decided on 16.1.2012 in which following observations have been made :

''After the respective arguments have been advanced, the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Coal Mines Ltd., AIR 1999 SC 1416, is being looked into. In the aforementioned judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court after taking into account various earlier judgments has held that departmental proceedings and proceedings in criminal case can proceed simultaneously, as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. It has been further held that if the departmental proceedings and criminal case are based on similar set of facts and charges in criminal case against delinquent employees is of grave nature which involves complicated questions of fact and law, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till conclusion of criminal case. Whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved or not will depend upon the nature of the offence, and the case lodged against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected during the investigation or as reflected in the charge-sheet, and these facts are not to be considered in isolation but due regard has to be given to the fact that departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. Thus, if complicated questions of fact and law are involved, and departmental proceedings and criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts, only then it is desirable to stay the departmental proceedings, but the said facts are not to be considered in isolation. Paragraph 22 of the judgment being relevant is being quoted below:

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

(i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in criminal case can proceed simultaneously, as there is no bar in their being conducted, simultaneously, though separately.

(ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and charge in criminal case against delinquent employees is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of criminal case.

(iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case will depend upon the nature of the offence, the nature of case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during the investigation or as reflected in the charge-sheet.

(iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed.

(v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of pendency of criminal c