TIRATH S. THAKUR, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner was working as a Senior Assistant in therespondent-Federation and was during the relevant period,posted as in-charge Branch Manager of its Gulbarga Branch. Interms of a charge-sheet Annexure-F to the writ petition, he wasaccused of having misappropriated an amount of Rs. 52,29,000and odd. A departmental enquiry into the charge has beeninitiated and entrusted to the 3rd respondent. ( 2 ) AGGRIEVED, the petitioner has filed the present writ petitionfor a writ of certiorari quashing the charge-sheet as also theorder of suspension, Annexure-K to the writ petition primarily onthe ground that since the Federation has reported the matter tothe Police in terms of the First Information Report, Annexure-G,to the writ petition; holding of the enquiry in question willgreatly prejudice him in his defence to the criminal case thatmay in due course be filed against him. ( 3 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner whoargued on the authority of a Judgment of the Supreme Court inkusheshwar Dubey v M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Others,that the conduct of a domestic enquiry against the petitionerpending investigation of a criminal case was legallyimpermissible. This judgment however does not support thesubmission made by the learned Counsel. The same takes theview that there is no legal bar to simultaneous proceedings beingtaken against an employee though there may be cases where itmay be appropriate to defer the disciplinary proceedingsawaiting disposal of the criminal case. The Court has held that itis neither possible nor advisable to evolve a hard and faststrait-jacket formula valid for all cases and of generalaplication without regard to the pecularities of an individualoftuation. The Court did not lay down any general guidelinesand even declined to resolve the cleavage in the judicial opinionprevalent in this country as to whether the pendency of acriminal case against an employee would by itself be sufficient tostay or prevent the disciplinary proceedings till such time thecriminal case was finally decided. The Court noted with approvalthe view taken by it in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. vkushal Bhan and Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v The Workmen, thatit is only in cases where the charge against the employees is of agrave nature and involved complex questions of law and factthat the need to stay the disciplinary proceedings may arise. The Court noted with approvalthe view taken by it in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. vkushal Bhan and Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v The Workmen, thatit is only in cases where the charge against the employees is of agrave nature and involved complex questions of law and factthat the need to stay the disciplinary proceedings may arise. Italso noticed its earlier judgment in Jang Bahadur Singh v Baijnath Tiwari , where the legal position was summed up in thefollowing words:"the issue in the disciplinary proceedings is whether theemployee is guilty of the charges on which it is proposed totake action against him. The same issue may arise fordecision in a civil or criminal proceeding pending in acourt. But the pendency of the Court proceedings does notbar the taking of disciplinary action. The power of takingsuch action is vested in the Disciplinary Authority. Thecivil or Criminal Court has no such power. The initiationand continuation of disciplinary proceedings in good faithis not calculated to obstruct or interfere with the course ofjustice in the pending Court proceedings. The employee isfree to move the Court for an order restraining thecontinuance of the disciplinary proceedings. If he obtains astay order, a wilful violation of the order would of courseamount to Contempt of Court. In the absence of a stayorder the Disciplinary Authority is free to exercise its lawful powers". To the same effect is the judgment of a Division Bench of thiscourt in Rama P. C. No. 486 v Superintendent of Police, Kolarand Another, a Division Bench Judgment of the High Court ofjammu and Kashmir in Ali Mohd. and Others v Chairman, T. A. and C. , Udhampur, a Division Bench Judgment of the High Courtof Gauhati in Moulindra Singh v Deputy Commissioner andothers, and a judgment of the High Court of Madras in Shaikkasim v The Superintendent of Post Offices, Chinglepat Divisionand Another. ( 4 ) IN Moulindra Singh's case, supra, a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court after noticing judgments of the Supremecourt in Delhi Cloth and General Mills' case, supra, and Tataoil Mills' case, supra, observed thus:"the petitioner has not even submitted his explanationand the departmental proceedings have not progressed. Itis difficult for the High Court at this stage to considerwhether the facts are of such complexity that it would bebetter that the criminal case is disposed of first in thiscase. Itis difficult for the High Court at this stage to considerwhether the facts are of such complexity that it would bebetter that the criminal case is disposed of first in thiscase. On the other hand, we are family with the spectaclethat criminal cases of this nature take a long time toconclude Mr. Das has not shown to us how the petitionerwill be prejudiced if he discloses his defence in this case. The defence will be one of innocence and the same defencecan be put even in the Criminal Court. On the other hand,some of the charges relate to irregularities about which thecriminal Court may not have anything to do whileembarking upon an enquiry for a criminal charge like Section 409, Indian Penal Code. We do not think that the Supreme Court has laid down as a law that such departmental proceedings, as we find in this case, must await as a matter of law until disposal of the criminal cases. We are, therefore, unable to accede to the submission of Mr. Das on that score. No other point has been raised before us". ( 5 ) THE principle therefore appears to be that mere pendency of a criminal case against an employee is not a bar to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him and the answer to the question whether or not the disciplinary proceedings should remain stayed pending disposal of the criminal case would depend upon the facts of each case and in particular whether the case involves such complex question of law and fact as may make it look desirable to await the result of the criminal case pending against the employee. ( 6 ) IN the instant case, it is not in dispute that the police has not so far completed the investigation and/or filed the charge-sheet against the petitioner. What is going on is only an investigation by the Police into certain allegations of misappropriation levelled against the petitioner. There is therefore no duplication of the trial of the petitioner in the strict sense of the term. That apart there is nothing before me to suggest that the enquiry started against the petitioner would involve any complicated or complex questions of law or fact of the kind which may justify stay of the said proceedings pending the completion of the criminal investigation and the finalisation of the trial of the petitioner. That apart there is nothing before me to suggest that the enquiry started against the petitioner would involve any complicated or complex questions of law or fact of the kind which may justify stay of the said proceedings pending the completion of the criminal investigation and the finalisation of the trial of the petitioner. Simply because an investigation is pending into charges similar to the one levelled against the petitioner in the domestic enquiry is in my opinion hardly enough to justify the stoppage of the enquiry. The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the conduct of the enquiry will prejudice the petitioner in his defence in the criminal case also does not impress me for the nature of the prejudice has neither been spelt out nor is it indicated as to how in the context of the facts and the circumstances of the present case any such prejudice is really imminent. It is not a mere remote possibility of some prejudice which would entitle the employee to the suspension of a disciplinary proceedings initiated against him but a reasonable likelihood of such a prejudice that can justify such suspension. ( 7 ) I do not therefore see any reason in the instant case, why the disciplinary proceedings should remain stayed till such time, the Police investigation is completed or the criminal case eventually settled one way or the other. There is no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed in limine. --- *** --- .