N. K. BATABYAL, J. ( 1 ) THE Court : The writ petitioner was appointed as a temporary Rate Collector of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation in the 1962. The writ petitioner got several promotions in his service and ultimately he was promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector. While serving as Sub-Inspector of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation, the writ petitioner was served on June 30, 1993 with a Memo as per Annexure-A to the writ petition, placing him under suspension with immediate effect as a disciplinary proceeding was contemplated against him. The petitioner was, however, granted the suspension allowance at the prescribed rate. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, one Arup Nag was trying to harass him by lodging various false and frivolous complaints with the Police against him. The said Arup Nag also had made an application before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, under section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In that application, it was falsely alleged that the writ petitioner had committed an offence under Section 420 of the Indian penal Code. In that application, it was stated by the said Arup Nag that the writ petitioner had prevailed upon him to make over a sum of Rs. 1,70,000/- in cash to the writ petitioner from time to time on various pretexts. When Sri Nag demanded back the said sum of money, the writ petitioner refused or neglected to return the same and absconded from his house. According to Sri Nag, the writ petitioner fraudulently induced him to part with the said sum of money on false pretexts. According to the writ petitioner, investigation of that case is still going on. (It has, however, been submitted by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner that during the pendency of this writ petition, investigation of that criminal case has been completed and charge-sheet submitted ). ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the writ petitioner, all the allegations made against him by Sri Nag are false and without any foundation. According to the writ petitioner, he never accepted the said sum of money from Sri Nag as alleged or never persuaded Sri Nag to part with the said sum of money in the manner as alleged. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the writ petitioner, all the allegations made against him by Sri Nag are false and without any foundation. According to the writ petitioner, he never accepted the said sum of money from Sri Nag as alleged or never persuaded Sri Nag to part with the said sum of money in the manner as alleged. It has been averred in the writ petition that under the Rules framed by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation, charge-sheet was to be submitted within one month from the date of suspension of the employee concerned. Bat in this case, more than three months have elapsed from the date of suspension of the writ petitioner and no charge-sheet was submitted against him. The petitioner through his learned Advocate had sent a letter dated September 4, 1993 to the respondents No. 1 and 3 for withdrawal of the order of his suspension and demanded that he might be allowed to join his duties. A copy of the said letter has been annexed to the writ petition and marked with the letter "d". But in spite of receipt of the said letter, the respondents concerned refused to withdraw or cancel the order of suspension and thereby prevented the writ petitioner from resuming his duties. Thereafter on October 18, 1993 the Assessor Collector of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation (the respondent No. 4 herein) served a Memo. upon the writ petitioner, which was described as a charge-sheet and the same has been quoted verbatim in paragraph 14 of the writ petition. According to the writ petitioner, it will appear from the said imputation of misconduct and/or charge-sheet that the entire case made out by the respondents is based on or are directly related to the subject matter of the criminal case pending against the writ petitioner. It has been stated by the writ petitioner that as the subject matter of enquiry in the departmental proceeding as also the subject matter of trial in the criminal case against him are the same and identical, the two things cannot proceed together and therefore, the departmental proceeding must be stayed until disposal of the criminal case as otherwise he would be compelled to disclose his defence in the criminal case. According to the writ petitioner, in spite of repeated demands and requests of the writ petitioner, the respondents have signally failed to act in accordance with their legal obligations. According to the writ petitioner, in spite of repeated demands and requests of the writ petitioner, the respondents have signally failed to act in accordance with their legal obligations. Therefore, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the arbitrary, illegal and unauthorised action of the respondents, the writ petitioner has come before this Court for reliefs, inter alia, that (a) a writ of mandamus directing the respondents and/or each, of them to act in accordance with law by withdrawing and/or cancelling the impugned charge-sheet, being Annexure-E to the writ petition; (b) a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents and/or each of them to revoke or withdraw the impugned order of suspension, being Annexure-A to the writ petition ; (c) a writ of certiorari directing the respondents and/or each of them to transmit and certify all the records and documents relating to this case to this Court for doing conscionable justice by this Court; etc. etc. ( 4 ) IN the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondents, the material allegations made in the writ petition have been denied. It has been stated that there is no substance in the contention of the writ petitioner for staying the departmental proceeding for the reasons stated by him. ( 5 ) IN the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the writ petitioner, the averments made in the writ petition have all been re-affirmed and asserted, the material allegations made in the affidavit-in-opposition have been denied and it has been stated that some of the statements made in paragraph 12 of the affidavit-in-opposition are totally false and incorrect. It has been submitted that the departmental proceeding should be stopped and the order of suspension should be revoked and the writ petitioner should be permitted to resume his duties as before. ( 6 ) IN the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondents, me material allegations made in the writ petition have been denied, ft has been stated that there is no substance in the contention of the writ petitioner for staying the departmental proceeding for the reasons stated by him. ( 6 ) IN the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondents, me material allegations made in the writ petition have been denied, ft has been stated that there is no substance in the contention of the writ petitioner for staying the departmental proceeding for the reasons stated by him. ( 7 ) IN the affidavit-in-reply filed an behalf of the writ petitioner, the averments made in the writ petition have all been re-affirmed and asserted, the material allegations made in the affidavit-in-opposition have been denied and it has been stated that some of the statements made in paragraph 12 of the- affidavit-in-opposition are totally false and incorrect. It has been submitted that the departmental proceeding should be stopped and the order of suspension should be revoked and the writ petitioner should be permitted to resume his duties as before. ( 8 ) MRS. Manika Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, has banked on the principles laid down by the apex Court of this land in the case of Kusheshwar Dubey v. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Others ( AIR 1988 SC 2118 ). In that case, the appellant was an employee of the respondent No. 1 and in 1986 was working as an electrical helper. On the allegation that he physically assaulted a supervising staff, he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings as also to a criminal prosecution. Since the disciplinary proceedings as also the criminal trial were taken up simultaneously, the appellant filed a civil action in the appropriate Court asking for injunction against the disciplinary action pending in the criminal trial. The learned Trial Court made an order staying further proceeding in the disciplinary action till the disposal of the criminal case. The appeal against the order of the learned Trial Court was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court. Thereafter against the order of the learned Appellate Court the Hon'ble High Court was moved in revision. The Hon'ble High Court set aside the impugned order after allowing the revision application against that, the matter was taken up to the apex Court of the land. Ultimately it was held that while there could be no legal bar in simultaneous proceeding being taken against the delinquent employee against whom disciplinary proceedings were initiated, yet there might be cases where it would be appropriate to defer disciplinary proceedings awaiting disposal of the criminal case. Ultimately it was held that while there could be no legal bar in simultaneous proceeding being taken against the delinquent employee against whom disciplinary proceedings were initiated, yet there might 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 employ 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 would then receive judicial consideration and the Court would decide in the given circumstances of a particular case as to whether the disciplinary proceedings should be interdicted, pending criminal case. It is neither possible nor admissible to evolve a hard and fast, stait-jacket formula valid for all cases and on general application without regard to the particularities of the individual situations. In the instant case, the criminal action and the disciplinary proceedings were grounded upon the same set of facts and, therefore, the disciplinary proceedings could be stayed, in the facts and circumstances. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court was reversed. ( 9 ) LEARNED Advocate for the respondents, Mr. L. C. Bihani, has very frankly submitted that the case relied upon by Mrs. Ghosh on behalf of the writ petitioner is the landmark case governing the field. Learned Advocate for the respondents has, in this connection, also referred to a decision of this Court in the case of, In re : Basudev Mitra [1994 (2) CLJ]. In that case, the question arose as to whether the departmental proceeding should be stayed pending criminal trial or not, in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court held that the question as to whether the departmental proceedings should be stayed pending criminal or not depends upon facts and circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule could be laid down therefore. It that case, learned Judge called upon the principles laid down in Kusheshwar Dubey's case (supra ). Learned Judge also referred to other various decisions of different High Courts of the country in the body of the judgment rendered by the Court. ( 10 ) FROM the above discussions, it is clear that there is no scope or dispute about the general principle laid down by the highest Court of the land. Learned Judge also referred to other various decisions of different High Courts of the country in the body of the judgment rendered by the Court. ( 10 ) FROM the above discussions, it is clear that there is no scope or dispute about the general principle laid down by the highest Court of the land. As a general rule, there is no legal bar for simultaneous proceedings being taken against the delinquent employee against whom disciplinary proceedings were initiated and criminal case was pending. But Their Lordships of the Supreme Court laid down that there were some situations in which the Court would decide as to whether the disciplinary proceedings should be interdicted pending the criminal trial. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court were pleased to lay down that there was no cut and dry rule which could be applied for deciding whether in a particular case the stay-order would be granted or not. It was left to the discretion of the Court concerned to decide whether in a particular factual matrix the brake was to be applied. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court considering the factual set up of the particular case, decided that in the particular factual setup the disciplinary proceedings could be stayed. So it was not laid down as a ratiodecidendi of that case that simply because there was commonality of the factual situations between the disciplinary proceeding and the criminal case, so it was the bounded duty of the Court to stay further proceeding of the disciplinary case. The main issue is whether the principle laid down in Kusheshwar Dubey's case should be applied mechanically or intelligently. The Court has got to see whether all the questions of fact and the inferences to be drawn from the facts, are common in both the cases. Because, there may be peculiar legal angles of a case pending before a criminal court and the same angles may not be germane for the decision of the matter in the departmental proceeding, though the main factual matrix of both the cases are the same. Here in the case before us, as it appears from the materials available before this Court that the question whether the said Arup Nag was induced fraudulently to part with certain amount of money as alleged, could be the main question in the criminal case. Here in the case before us, as it appears from the materials available before this Court that the question whether the said Arup Nag was induced fraudulently to part with certain amount of money as alleged, could be the main question in the criminal case. But in the departmental proceeding that particular angle of fraudulent intention might not be germane. As an employee of the Corporation the petitioner could not borrow the money for opening a shop as alleged even without the criminal intention. Therefore, it cannot be said that all the questions involved in the criminal case are also involved in the departmental proceeding. Moreover, the Supreme Court in Kusheshwar Dubey's case (supra) stated that the disciplinary proceeding of that case could be stayed in the particular facts and circumstances of the case and it was not laid down that the disciplinary proceeding should be stayed in the situation. Therefore, the element of discretion on the part of the Court even in allowing the prayer for injunction was high-lighted in the judgment of the apex Court. Moreover, another practical aspect of the entire situation has got to be considered as it is common knowledge that criminal cases take several years for disposal these days and it is not proper that departmental proceeding should be stayed for long years giving subsistence allowance to the writ petitioner from public money without getting any work from him. Therefore, considering all the aspects of the matter, this Court is convinced that this is not a case where the writ court should exercise its discretion in favour of the writ petitioner. In the above of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no order is made as to costs. All parties shall act on a signed copy of the minutes of the operative part of this Judgment upon usual undertaking. Petition dismissed.