JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner claims to be a permanent employee of Eastern Coal Fields Limited and at the time of filing of the writ petition he was functioning as Security Guard at Headquarters at Sanctoria, District Burdwan. 2. Over the treatment of the petitioner's son at the Sanctoria Hospital, certain allegations were levelled against the petitioner and his family members by one Dr. Biswal, the Medical Superintendent of the Hospital, alleging use of force and misbehaviour with him. A criminal case was started against the petitioner and his family members under Sections 143/447/323/353/506 Indian Penal Code on Dr. Biswal, complaint on 8th April, 1996, when the alleged incident was said to have occurred. 3. Simultaneously with the criminal proceedings, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 8th April, 1996 in respect of the self-same incident, directing the petitioner to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for the alleged acts of misconduct enumerated therein and placing the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry into the charges and a decision thereupon. 4. The issuance of the said charge-sheet and the disciplinary proceeding initiated thereupon is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ application. 5. Appearing in support of the writ petition, Mr. Subrata Roy, learned Advocate, firstly urged that two parallel proceedings involving the self-same set of facts could not be allowed to continue, inasmuch as, the petitioner would be forced to disclose his defence in the disciplinary proceedings, which would prejudice his defence in the criminal trial. 6. In support of his aforesaid submission, Mr. Roy relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in (1) Kusheshwar Dubey v. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Ors. reported in AIR 1988 SC at page 2118, wherein in similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter alia, observed that while there could be no legal bar for simultaneous proceedings being taken against the delinquent employee against whom disciplinary proceedings were initiated, yet, there may be cases where it would be appropriate to defer disciplinary proceedings awaiting disposal of the criminal case. 7. Mr. Roy pointed out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court went on to stay the disciplinary proceedings as the criminal proceedings Were grounded upon the same set of facts involved in the disciplinary proceedings. 8. Mr. 7. Mr. Roy pointed out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court went on to stay the disciplinary proceedings as the criminal proceedings Were grounded upon the same set of facts involved in the disciplinary proceedings. 8. Mr. Roy urged that since in the instant case the same set of facts were involved in the criminal proceedings as also the disciplinary proceedings, following the decision of the Supreme Court, the disciplinary proceedings were also liable to be stayed till the conclusion of the criminal proceedings. 9. Opposing the writ application on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Swapan Garai, learned Advocate submitted that the question as to whether the disciplinary proceedings should be stayed pending the conclusion of the criminal proceedings depended on the gravity of the offence. Mr. Garai urged that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had in the case of (2) Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Kaushal Bhan reported in AIR 1960 SC page 806, observed that though very often employers stay enquiries into misconduct of employers pending decision of the criminal trial Courts dealing with the same set of facts, which is fair, it cannot be said that the principles of natural Justice require that an employer must wait for the decision of the criminal Courts before taking action against an employee. If, however, the case is of a grave nature or involves questions of fact or law, which are not simple, it would be advisable for the employer to await the decision of the trial Court, so that the defence of the employee in the criminal case was not prejudiced. 10. Mr. Garai also referred to a Bench decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of (3) Yasin Khan v. O. N. G. C. reported in 1995(3) SLR at page 630, where the above principle was reiterated, and it was observed that then: cannot be a legal bar for simultaneous proceedings being taken and it is neither possible nor advisable to evolve a hard and fast strait-jacket formula for all cases. When a person is prosecuted for a grave charge, then it is fair that the departmental enquiry should be stayed and it would be unfair to compel the workman to disclose his defence which he may take before the criminal Court. But when the case is of a simple nature, the management would be justified in proceeding with the departmental enquiry. 11. Mr. But when the case is of a simple nature, the management would be justified in proceeding with the departmental enquiry. 11. Mr. Garai urged that having regard to the principle enunciated above, the departmental proceedings in the instant case should be allowed to continue as the criminal case against the petitioner and his family members was of a simple nature, involving alleged assault and an attempt to prevent Dr. Biswal from discharging his duties by criminal intimidation and threats. 12. Although, in the writ petition, the main relief sought is quashing of the departmental proceedings, what bas ultimately been argued is that the said proceedings should be stayed pending the decision in the criminal case. 13. The decisions cited on behalf of the parties all agree that when criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings are simultaneously commenced against an employee on the same set of facts, then when the charges are of a grave nature, it would be advisable for the employer to stay the departmental proceedings so that the employee concerned was not compelled to disclose his defence which could prejudice him in the criminal trial. 14. The charges in the instant case are certainly not of a grave nature and involve assault and an attempt on the part of the petitioner and his family members to prevent Dr. Biswal from discharging his duties at the Sanctoria Hospital. 15. I am, therefore, inclined to agree with Mr. Garai that this is not a fit case where the departmental proceedings should be stayed pending disposal of the criminal proceedings, as the charges involved are of a fairly simple nature and no complicated questions of fact and law are involved, which could have warranted an order of stay. 16. No cogent ground has also been made out on behalf of the said petitioner for quashing of the departmental proceedings. 17. The writ petition, accordingly, fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.