JUDGMENT V.P. Bhatnagar, J.—The petitioners are the employees of National Hydro Electric Power Corporation and were working in the Chamera Hydro Electric Project in the year 1989 They were elected as leaders of the Chamera Workers Employees Union registered under the Trade Union Act 1926. According to the allegations contained in the petition, the workers of the Project got highly agitated due to scarcity of water in Project Colony at Banikhet near Dalhousie for 5-6 days preceding June 29, 1989. Water was not available even to the hospital. The Union took up the matter with the management but in vain. This resulted in taking out of a procession by about 500 workers from the hospital compound to the Project Guest House around 6.30 p.m. on June 29, 1989. The General Manager of the Project and the S.D.M Dalhousie met the workers and assured that the water supply would be augmented. The demonstration was then called off. It remained peaceful and no untoward event took place It, is however, came to the knowledge of the petitioners that Shri Gopal Krishan Mahajan, Chief Engineer had lodged a false F.I.R. with the police resulting into the registration of a case against the petitioners under sections 379, 452, 147, 332, 427, 341, 148 and 506, I.P.C. and section 25 of the Indian Telegraph Act . A challan stands submitted in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba camp Dalhousie and the petitioners are being tried for having committed the above-mentioned offences. The petitioners were also placed under suspension through orders passed on 4th and 5th July, 1989 and disciplinary proceedings hive been initiated against them. The criminal case as also the disciplinary proceedings have arisen out of the same incident alleged to have taken place on June 29, 1989. The incident, as made out, is false and a result of sheer vindictiveness and unfair labour practice meant to numiliate, harass and demoralise the workers. Furthermore, the disciplinary proceedings are calculated to obstruct and interfere with the course of justice since a criminal case is pending in the court. A prayer has, therefore, been made in this petition for the stay of the departmental proceedings initiated by the respondents against the petitioners pursuant to charge-sheets annexed at P-8 to P-11. Furthermore, the disciplinary proceedings are calculated to obstruct and interfere with the course of justice since a criminal case is pending in the court. A prayer has, therefore, been made in this petition for the stay of the departmental proceedings initiated by the respondents against the petitioners pursuant to charge-sheets annexed at P-8 to P-11. A prayer has also been made for quashing the departmental proceedings being violative of the provisions of Industrial Development (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 but this ground has not been pressed at the time of the arguments Thus, the only point which requires determination is whether the disciplinary proceedings should be stayed pending disposal of the criminal case. 2. The statement of Shri Gopal Krishan Mahajan, Chief Engineer which forms the basis of the F.I.R. lodged on June 29, 1989 has been annexed at P-3/1.It reads : "Stated that I am employed as Chief Engineer in Chamera Project since April 1987. Today the 29-6-1989 as usual I returned to my residence around 6.15 p.m. from my office after completing my duty and I had hardly unlaced my boots and put on the chappals, I got a phone from R.K. Singh Clerk Chamera Project asking me to come down to have a talk. On this I replied that since I was not feeling well, I would talk tomorrow, Thereafter at about 7.15 p. m. S.S. Dogra, leader of AITUC Workers and Employees Union, R.K. Singh, clerk, Chamera Project and Sukh Dev Security Guard, Shamsher, clerk F&A and Jai Kishan, mechanic, Chamera Project came and stood in verandah of my residence. I asked Dogra sahib what was the matter. All these five accused remained silent and with the motive of criminal intention to assault me started pouncing on me and with a push 1 was thrown in verandah. I was lifted by my son, daughter and wife and they took me inside the house. All the accused disconnected the wire of telephone and light. After hearing the notice S/Shri Joginder Singh, Sr. Manager P&A, Chamera Project, A. Ramamurthy, Chief Finance and S.K. Dedeja, Sr. Manager E&T reached the spot and saw these going out of verandah My chappals, power grips were taken away by them. When I was thrown on the ground by a push I felt that my spinal cord had been hit by something solid. Manager P&A, Chamera Project, A. Ramamurthy, Chief Finance and S.K. Dedeja, Sr. Manager E&T reached the spot and saw these going out of verandah My chappals, power grips were taken away by them. When I was thrown on the ground by a push I felt that my spinal cord had been hit by something solid. I am feeling pain in my jaw and there are scratches on my neck and I am also feeling severe pain in my waist. Thereafter all these five persons threatened to kill me and started intolerable abuses. I had to come to you to lodge the report but you have come to me Further proceedings be initiated.” 3. True photostat copies of the charge-sheets served upon the petitioners have been attached at Annexures P-8 to P-11 to the petition. These charge-sheet are more or less, worded similarly. One charge-sheet at Annexure P-8 may, therefore, be reproduced per verbatim to afford an indication about similarity of allegations in the criminal case and the departmental proceedings. The said charge-sheet is as follows ; CHARGE-SHEET It has been reported :— (i) that, on 29-6-1989 at about 6.45 p. m. you contacted Shri G.K. Mahajan, Chief Engineer (PS) on telephone at his official residence and asked him to come down to Banikhet Hospital otherwise he would face dire consequences, by uttering the words, 1[* * * *] even though he informed that he was not feeling well. (ii) That, on the same day at about 7.15 p.m. you alongwith S/Shri S.S. Dogra, resident, Chamera Workers and Employee Union, Sukhdev Bharaj, Security Guard, Jai Kishan, Mech. Gr-II Shamsher Singh, AG-III and other persons went to the official residence of Shri G.K. Mahajan, CE (PS) at Banikhet and trespassed into the precinct of the official residence and called out Shri Mahajan. When Shri G.K. Mahajan came out in the verandah of his official residence, you alongwith above persons manhandled and physically assaulted Shri Mahajan without any provocation by inflicting .punches, threw him to the ground and hurt him at the back. (iii) Thereafter, you alongwith other persons created nuisance and disturbance by loudly shouting filthy, abusive and uncalled for slogans, such as :— 1[* * * *] Not printed here. in front of Shri G.K. Mahajans official residence thereby disturbing the peace and discipline in the Projects residential complex. (iii) Thereafter, you alongwith other persons created nuisance and disturbance by loudly shouting filthy, abusive and uncalled for slogans, such as :— 1[* * * *] Not printed here. in front of Shri G.K. Mahajans official residence thereby disturbing the peace and discipline in the Projects residential complex. (iv) That, you alongwith others created unlawful assembly at the official residence of Shri G.K. Mahajan, CE (PS) on the same day causing riotous and disorderly behaviour which is an act of grave subversive of discipline and criminal intimidation and also took the law and order into your hands. (v) That, on the same day, you alongwith Shri Sukhdev Bharaj, Security Guard, removed the grips of the kit-kats from the meter board at the residence of Shri G.K. Mahajan, causing the failure of electricity supply to the residence of Shri Mahajan. You alongwith Shri Sukhdev Bharaj also cut off the P&T and PAX telephone lines, thereby causing, wilful damage to the employers property and also caused mental agony gland harassment to Shri G.K. Mahajan and his family. Later on, when Shri R.K. Khanna, Engineer (Elect.) came to restore the electric supply at the residence of Shri G.K. Mahajan, you alongwith others thereatened Shri R.K. Khanna to face dire consequences if he dared to restore the electric supply. Your above acts, constitute serious misconduct on your part which are unbecoming of an employee of the Project. Therefore, you are called upon to reply to the above charges within 7 (seven) days from the receipt of this charge-sheet, failing which it shall be presumed that you have nothing to say in this behalf and that further action shall be taken ex parte as per rules. You will continue to be under suspension till further orders. Sd/ (Disciplinary Authority). 4. A catena of case law has been cited by the learned Counsel for the parties in this case. It is not necessary to refer to those cases except to notice the latest law laid down in Kusheshwar Dubey v. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and others, AIR 1988 SC 2118 for the reason that the Supreme Court therein has taken into consideration the development of law on the point of permissibility of disciplinary proceedings when simultaneous criminal trial against delinquents is being held. In other words, most of the authorities prior to Kusheshwar Dubey stand noticed in that case. In other words, most of the authorities prior to Kusheshwar Dubey stand noticed in that case. The facts of that case were that appellant Kusheshwar Dubey was working as an electrical helper in Balihari Colliery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., in the year 1986. A criminal prosecution and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him at the same time on the allegations that he had physically assaulted a supervising officer. The appellant approached the civil court at Dhanbad praying for an injunction for the stay of the disciplinary action pending criminal trial. Munsiff granted him the injunction sought for and the first appellate court dismissed the appeal. However, the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction vacated the injunction holding that there was no bar for an employer to proceed with departmental action with regard to same allegations for which a criminal case is pending. The matter then went up to the Supreme Court in which, as stated above, dealt with the law which existed on the above point, particularly Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Rushed Bhan, AIR 1960 SC 806, Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen, AIR 1965 SC 155, and Jang Bahadur Singh v. Baij Nath Tiwari, AIR 1969 SC 30, and made the following observation in paras 6 and 7 of the judgment : "6. The view expressed in the three cases of this Court seem 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 proceeding would then receive judicial consideration and the Court will decide in the given circumstances 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 straight-jacket formula valid for all cases and of general application without regard to the particularities of the individual situation. As we have already stated that it is neither possible nor advisable to evolve a hard and fast straight-jacket 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. 7. In the instant case, the criminal action and the disciplinary proceedings are grounded upon the same set of facts. We are of the view that the disciplinary proceedings should have been stayed and the High Court was not right in interfering with the trial Courts order of injunction which had been affirmed in appeal." The law as enunciated by the Supreme Court and adverted to above leaves no scope for doubt that, all said and done there is no bar for simultaneous proceedings being taken against the delinquents in the form of criminal action as also disciplinary proceedings but that the facts and circumstances of a particular case may be of such nature so as to render it appropriate to defer disciplinary proceedings awaiting disposal of the criminal case. For instance, the charges may be extremely serious and grave requiring judicial determination in preference to the verdict of a domestic tribunal. 5. In the present case, the petitioners are alleged to have trespassed into the residence of the Chief Engineer of the Project and thrashed him physically in the presence of the members of his family. If true, these acts under no stretch of imagination can form part of the trade union activities. Much time is likely to be taken before the criminal case arising out of this incident comes to a close it would certainly not be in the public interest if the petitioners, assuming that they are guilty of misconduct for which they have been charge-sheeted, remain unpunished for such a long period. It has also to be borne in mind that the quality of evidence and standard of proof in a criminal case is different than that required during departmental proceedings. It is settled law that preponderance of probability has to be seen in a domestic enquiry whereas guilt is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal court. 6. It has also to be borne in mind that the quality of evidence and standard of proof in a criminal case is different than that required during departmental proceedings. It is settled law that preponderance of probability has to be seen in a domestic enquiry whereas guilt is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal court. 6. Cumulatively, on the facts and circumstances as noticed above, it is not a fit case where disciplinary proceedings are required to be stayed pending decision of the criminal case. This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. It is however, made clear that observations aforesaid will not constitute expression of opinion on merits of the criminal case as also of the departmental proceedings and therefore, will have no applicability whatsoever for determining those cases. Writ petition dismissed.