ORDER

1. The present petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:-

"(1) That, this Hon’ble Court to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus and may kindly be pleased to quash the Impugned Charge Sheet dt. 22.6.2023 (Ann.P/5) issucd by Respondent No.4, in the interest ofjustice.

(ii) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to keep in abeyance the departmental proceedings in pursuance of the impugned charge sheet dt. 22.6.2023 tll the conclusion of the criminal trial, in the interest of justice.

(iii) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and properin the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner along with cost of the petition."

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that the petitioner in the instant petition has challenged the legality of charge sheet dated 22.6.2023 issued by AIG (Vigilance) Police Headquarter (respondent No.4 herein) based entirely on two FIRs, which was registered on the same date i.e. 8.5.2023 against the petitioner on same set of facts and contentions. One FIR against the petitioner was vide Crime No.209/23 at police station Maharana Pratap Nagar, Bhopal under section 36(b) of Excise Act and another FIR vide Crime No.211/2023 was in respect of offence under sections 294, 323, 353, and 186 of IPC. Now charge sheet in both cases have been filed and the matter is under trial.

3. At the one hand, charge sheet in both the cases have been filed and on the other hand, Department has initiated departmental enquiry against the petitioner. This is bone of contention. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that at the relevant point of time, when he was working as Police Inspector, Crime Branch Bhopal, a written complaint was filed by one Sub Inspector Keshant Sharma with the fact that present petitioner and two others persons were drinking alcohol in a public place and when he arrived at the spot after receiving a call from other officer, under the influence of alcohol, they hurled abuses, caused Maar Peet and obstructed the public servant from discharging his duties.

5. It is further submitted that on the allegations, two charge sheets have already been filed and trials are going on against petitioner. Meanwhile, issuance of charge sheet entails initiation of departmental enquiry and if he participates in the departmental enquiry, then his defence would be open and his defence would become vulnerable before the trial Court for the reason that all witnesses in the charge sheet are similar as that of in the departmental enquiry. Therefore, in the interest of justice, and to protect him from the wrath of trial, where his defence would be rendered open, departmental enquiry be stayed till conclusion of the trial. He undertakes that he shall not take undue adjournment in the trial and in fact would take all endeavours to cause conclusion of trial as early as possible without delay. He relied upon judgments of apex Court in the case of Capt.M.Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another (1999) 3 SCC 679, State Bank of India and others v. Neelam Nag and another (2016) 9 SCC 491, Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Ltd. v. Girish and others (2014) 3 SCC 636 and judgment of learned Division Bench in the case of Food Corporation of India v. Harish Prakash Hinunia (W.A.No.158/2022 order dated 8.3.2022).

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer and on the basis of reply contested the case. According to learned counsel for respondent, the departmental enquiry can move simultaneously with criminal trial. It is further submitted that both move in different factual back drop and nature of evidence is different in both the proceedings. He relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the cases of Avinash Sadashiv Bhosale v. Union of India 2012(13) SCC 142 and Shashi Bhushan Prasad vs. Inspector General Cen