M. B. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner was working as a Junior Assistant with the Gujarat Electricity Board. At the relevant time be was serving at Kapadwanj. Against him F. T. R. is lodged for the offences punishable under Secs. 409 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has been suspended by an order dated 9-2-1986 pending departmental enquiry. Thereafter the respondent initiated departmental enquiry against the petitioner for which charge-sheet was given on 22/05/1987 The petitioner relied that as he was mentally not well therefore he was not in a position to reply to the said show cause notice and one months time be granted to him for submitting reply. That letter is Annexure F to this petition. Again by letter dated 27-6-1987 he asked for further time. Thereafter the petitioner has filed this petition wherein it has been prayed that respondent No. 1 be directed not to hold any departmental enquiry against the petitioner on the basis of the charge-sheet Annexure C till the final disposal of the criminal case and its investigation. ( 2 ) NOTICE was issued to the other side. In response to the notice on behalf of the respondent-Board an affidavit-in-reply is filed by the Superintending Engineer. It has been pointed out that the petitioner was not co-operating in the enquiry. It is submitted that there is no bar for holding departmental enquiry till the criminal trial is over. Reliance is placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of Motising v. S. D. Mehta AIR 1966 Gujarat 233: ( 1966 GLR 409 ). ( 3 ) AT the time of hearing of this petition Mr. Desai learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner vehemently admitted that at present the criminal prosecution is pending before the judicial Magistrate First Class at Kapadwanj and the matter is adjourned to 23/03/1988 for framing of the charge the allegation against him is for misappropriation of the amount of Rs. 46 0 therefore pending criminal trial further proceedings in departmental enquiry should be stayed. He submitted that on identical facts if the departmental enquiry is held it would cause prejudice to the petitioner. ( 4 ) AS against this learned Advocate Mr. Farooqui vehemently submitted that since 1987 departmental enquiry is pending the petitioner sought some time for filing reply to the charge-sheet and thereafter he has approached this Court. He submitted that on identical facts if the departmental enquiry is held it would cause prejudice to the petitioner. ( 4 ) AS against this learned Advocate Mr. Farooqui vehemently submitted that since 1987 departmental enquiry is pending the petitioner sought some time for filing reply to the charge-sheet and thereafter he has approached this Court. He submitted that if the department is permitted to hold the departmental enquiry then it could be finalised within three months. Me further relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kusheshwar Dubey v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd 1988 (4) SCC 319 . ( 5 ) IN the aforesaid case of Kusheshwar Dubey (supra) after-considering the previous decision of the Supreme Court the Court arrived at the conclusion that there could be no legal bar for simultaneous proceedings of departmental enquiry and criminal trial being taken. The relevant discussion is as under:"the view expressed in the three cases of this Court seems to-support-the position that while there could be no legal bar for simultaneous proceedings being taken yet there may be cases where it would be appropriate to defer disciplinary proceedings awaiting disposal of the criminal case. In the latter class of cases it would be open to the delinquent employee to seek such an order of stay or injunction from the Court Whether in the facts and circumstances of a Particular case there should or should not be such simultaneity of the proceedings should then receive judicial consideration and the Court will decided in the given cirumstances of a particular case as to whether the disciplinary proceedings should be interdicted pending criminal trial. As we have already stated that it is neither possible nor advisable to evolve a hard and fast straitjacket formula valid for all cases and of general application without regard to the particularities of the individual situation. For the disposal of the present case we do not think it necessary to say anything more particularly when we do not intend to lay down any general guideline". From the aforesaid discussion it is clear that it is upon to the department to initiate departmental enquiry for the same charges but at the same time the Court may stay the departmental proceeding in individual cases after considering the facts of that case. From the aforesaid discussion it is clear that it is upon to the department to initiate departmental enquiry for the same charges but at the same time the Court may stay the departmental proceeding in individual cases after considering the facts of that case. ( 6 ) IN the present case taking into consideration the fact that the matter was pending investigation for number of months and thereafter it is pending before the Criminal Court only for framing charge it is apparent that there is no progress in the criminal case. If further delay is permitted in holding departmental proceeding it may cause inconvenience to the department. If the departmental proceedings are further delayed it may happen that some evidence may not be available after lapse of long period. Further in the departmental enquiry if the petitioner is not held guilty then he can be reinstated in service. If he is held guilty then appropriate action could be taken otherwise the petitioner would be kept under suspension for years together and the department would have to pay subsistence allowance or salary to the petitioner without taking any work from him till the criminal case is finally decided not only by the trial Court but also by the appellate Court. So suspension for a long period of a civil servant would not be in the public interest in maintaining the efficiency of the service and also it would not be in the interest of the petitioner as well as the department. Hence taking into consideration the aforesaid circumstances this would not be a fit case for staying the departmental proceedings. ( 7 ) MR. Farooqui learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that if the petitioner co-operates in the departmental enquiry it would be finalised at the earliest and before the Criminal Court frames the charges it would be over. This was objected to by the learned Advocate for the petitioner by contending that the evidence which may be recorded in the departmental enquiry may be used against him in the criminal trial. He submitted that in the criminal proceedings the petitioner is not required to open his mouth and cannot be compelled to be a witness against him. This was objected to by the learned Advocate for the petitioner by contending that the evidence which may be recorded in the departmental enquiry may be used against him in the criminal trial. He submitted that in the criminal proceedings the petitioner is not required to open his mouth and cannot be compelled to be a witness against him. It is true that under Art. 20 of the Constitution of India no person accused of any offence can be compelled to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding but that does not mean that he is excused from answering the charges which are levelled against him in departmental proceedings. ( 8 ) LEARNED Advocate Mr. Farooqui submitted that in the case of Motising v. S. D. Mehta AIR 1966 Gujarat 233: ( 1966 GLR 409 ) the Division Bench of this Court has clearly pointed out that the scope of the departmental enquiry and the scope of the criminal prosecution is entirely different. The procedure which is to be adopted in criminal prosecution and the presumption which is to be raised and the manner of recording evidence would be entirely different in departmental enquiries. In the aforesaid case the Court has held that the departmental enquiry is started for the purpose of satisfying as to whether in fact the departmental is guilty of any misconduct or delinquency which requires to be dealt with in the interest of public administration. The object is only to inquire in to the question as to whether the delinquent is guilty of misconduct or delinquency. The scope of a departmental enquiry is to determine whether a public servant has committed a misconduct or delinquency and even if the same constitutes from one point of view a crime to consider the question whether the delinquent deserves to be retained in public service or to be reverted or to be reduced in make or otherwise suitably dealt with for the delinquency concerned. Criminal proceedings are entirely different in nature and its object is to punish the accused for the offence committed by him. The rules relating to the appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings are different. The scope of an enquiry in a criminal trial is to determine whether an offence against the law of the land has taken place and if so to punish the person who has been guilty of that offence. The rules relating to the appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings are different. The scope of an enquiry in a criminal trial is to determine whether an offence against the law of the land has taken place and if so to punish the person who has been guilty of that offence. Proceedings in a criminal trial would be as per the Criminal Procedure Code and the evidence would be recorded as per the Evidence Act. Certain statements of the accused would be inadmissible in evidence in criminal trial. The position would be different in departmental enquiry. ( 9 ) IN my view in view of the delay in criminal proceedings and in view of the fact that the departmental proceedings are initiated for altogether different purpose it would be just and proper not to grant any interim directions restraining the departmental from holding enquiry. If the interim order is granted then the society as a whole will only be the sufferer. In some cases guilty persons would continue in service till they retire. By holding departmental enquiry no prejudice would be caused to the delinquent. ( 10 ) IN this view of the matter this petition deserves to be rejected and is rejected. Notice discharged. Rule discharged. .