Judgment D. P. Wadhwa, J. 1. - This Letters patent Appeal by the State of Bihar and others is directed against the judgment dated July 25, 1995 of the Learned single Judge by which he had allowed the writ application of the respondent and stayed the disciplinary proceedings against him on the ground that on the same allegations criminal proceedings had been initiated against him. 2. The respondent is an officer of the Bihar Administrative Service and during the relevant period was posted on deputation as Deputy Collector, revenue Administration, Patna division of the Water Resources department. The period was from april, 1984 to October, 1988. One rama Shankar Prasad Sinha (for short, sinha) was posted as the Cashier in the same department during this period. On october 5, 1989 a first information report was lodged against the respondent and Sinha for offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 469,120-B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The report was lodged by the successor-in-office of the respondent. The substance of the allegations was that Tahshildars in the division were collecting money from the farmers on account of revenue and used to deposit the same in the Division with the respondent and Sinha, but the amounts they did not properly. account for and defalcated the same. It was stated that the respondent and Sinha had adopted three devices to defalcate the Government money in conspiracy with each other and by committing forgery and they used to keep substantial part of the revenue so collected with themselves. One device was that in the money receipt book maintained in triplicate different entries were made and while the Tahshildars who made the payments were given receipts containing the amounts received from them, but in the other part of the receipt book lesser amount was mentioned and that lesser amount was actually deposited in the treasury to the credit of the State government. Second device adopted was that forged money receipt book had been got printed and from those, receipts were granted to the Tahshildars and the money received were not accounted for and not deposited in the treasury. The third device was that though the money was received in some cases no receipt at all was actually given to the Tahshildars and no record maintained and the amount so received was not deposited in the treasury. The police registered the case and started the investigation. The third device was that though the money was received in some cases no receipt at all was actually given to the Tahshildars and no record maintained and the amount so received was not deposited in the treasury. The police registered the case and started the investigation. A final form was submitted in the Court of the Chief Judicial magistrate on February 8,1992 whereby only Sinha, the cashier, was chargesheeted and not the respondent who on that basis was discharged by order dated february 20, 1992 passed by the Chief judicial Magistrate, Patna, who had taken cognizance of some of the offences only against Sinha, the cashier. 3. Thereafter departmental proceedings were initiated against the respondent on April 22,1992 and Home (Police) Department was also asked to reinvestigate the matter. At the same time, the State also filed a money suit on April 3,1993 against the respondent and Sinha for recovery of the amount allegedly misappropriated and embezzled by them which ran into lakhs of rupees. An application as also filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on april 13, 1994 that some further material had been collected against the respondent which indicated commission of offences not only under the Indian penal Code but also under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. A prayer was, therefore, made to the Learned chief Judicial Magistrate to transfer the case to the court of Special Judge appointed under that Act. The prayer was allowed by order dated April 21, 1994 and the offences under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act were added by the Court and the case transferred to the Special Judge. The police is yet to file the charge-sheet after rein vestigation of the case. The matter against the respondent is thus still under investigation. 4. In the money suit the respondent, it appears, took some adjournments for filing written statement and on September 13,1995 filed an application under Sec.151 of the Code of civil Procedure for staying further proceedings in the suit till the disposal of the criminal case which had been registered against him. On this application the Learned Subordinate Judge stayed the suit on November 24, 1995. On this application the Learned Subordinate Judge stayed the suit on November 24, 1995. The State of Bihar filed a revision against that order in this Court being civil Revision No.257 of 19% which was allowed by judgment dated September 9, 19% and the application of the respondent for staying of money suit against him and Sinha was dismissed. 5. In the departmental proceeding which had been initiated the respondent by order dated July 21, 1994 was called upon to submit his written statement to the Commissioner, Patna Division, who had. been appointed as the Inquiry Officer. The respondent took part in this proceeding complaining about nonsupply of certain documents. After the respondent has been granted opportunity to inspect the documents and also been given relevant documents he filed a show cause on April 14,1995 terming the same as preliminary statement of defence in which it was contended that as there was criminal proceedings pending against him for some charges which had also been included in the chargesheet in the departmental proceeding, the enquiry should be stayed until the disposal of the criminal case. He also claimed stay of the departmental proceedings during the pendency of the money suit aforementioned. He reserved his right to file further written statement, if necessary. His prayer for stay of departmental proceedings was rejected by order dated April 29, 1995 by the Commissioner, Patna Division. This led to the filing of the writ application by the respondent which, as noted above, was allowed and the departmental proceedings stayed. The legality of the order dated July 25, 1995 of the learned Single Judge is under challenge in this appeal. 6. At the departmental proceedings six charges had been levelled against the respondent. The Learned single Judge noted that charges 1, 2 and 3 were the same as were the subject-matter of the first information report lodged against the respondent. He, therefore, observed that in the interest of justice the departmental proceedings as regards charges 1, 2 and 3 be stayed. He further observed that if in the final report submitted by the police after investigation there was no case against the respondent it shall be open to the enquiry Officer to proceed in respect of these three charges in the departmental proceedings. He further observed that if in the final report submitted by the police after investigation there was no case against the respondent it shall be open to the enquiry Officer to proceed in respect of these three charges in the departmental proceedings. As regards charges 4, 5 and 6, the learned Judge observed that in case during investigation more material was found disclosing prima facie involvement of the respondent in the commission of the offences relating to those charges, the Enquiry Officer shall also not proceed in respect of those charges as well "if the petitioner objects". 7. The Learned single Judge while coming to these conclusions did not refer to any particular judgment but noted that various decisions of the supreme Court led one to the conclusion "that in a case where continuance of a departmental proceeding will prejudice the defence of the accused in a criminal case, it would be prudent to stay the-departmental proceeding till the criminal trial is concluded". He also noted that this was not hard and fast rule and that it was not that in all cases where a Government servant was prosecuted in a criminal court, the departmental proceeding should be stayed. He then observed that there was, however, consensus of judicial opinion that if the charges before the criminal court were almost identical with the charges in the departmental proceeding, it would be prudent to stay the departmental proceeding, except in very exceptional cases where it might be shown that no prejudice would be caused to the defence of the accused in the criminal case. The Learned Single judge was of the view that such exceptional cases would be "few and far between". In the case before hand, the learned Judge observed that the trial has not commenced but the possibility in near future of the respondent being prosecuted might be there and that there was also possibility that further investigation might not result in any criminal proceeding against the respondent and that these might be dropped he was, therefore, of the view "that a little time must lapse before it can be said conclusively that the petitioner is to face a criminal trial". 8. In our opinion, however, the learned Single Judge has not taken the correct view of the matter in staying the departmental proceedings. 8. In our opinion, however, the learned Single Judge has not taken the correct view of the matter in staying the departmental proceedings. The respondent has not been able to show what prejudice, if any, or embarrassment shall be caused to him in case the departmental proceedings proceed against him particularly when the police had not submitted any charge-sheet (final form) against him and the matter was still under investigation and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate did not take cognizance of any offence against the respondent. As noted above, the attempt of the respondent to have civil suit stayed ultimately failed in the revision filed by the State of Bihar in this Court. We have not been shown any decision of the Supreme Court or of any other court that even when investigation is pending with the police the departmental proceeding should be stayed. The Learned Single Judge though rightly observed that it was not invariably a rule that when accused was facing the criminal trial, the departmental proceeding against him should be stayed. We think it will be stretching this rule too far if we hold that even when the investigation is pending the departmental proceeding should be stayed without knowing if ultimately the investigation results into prosecution of the accused or not. It is altogether a different thing that a person against whom first information report is lodged and a case registered of a cognizable offence, he cannot be compelled to be witness against himself. 9. In Kusheshwar V/s. M/s Bharat coking Coal Ltd. , AIR 1988 SC 2118 the court found that criminal and disciplinary proceedings were grounded on the same set of facts and, therefore, the disciplinary proceeding should be stayed in the facts and circumstances of the case. In this case the allegation was that the worker had physically assaulted a supervising officer. He was subjected to a disciplinary proceeding as also the criminal prosecution. The Court held that there was no legal bar for simultaneous criminal and departmental proceedings being taken against the delinquent employee and whether criminal proceedings should be stayed in such a case would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each particular case and that it was 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. The Court referred to its earlier decisions in Delhi Cloth and general Mills Ltd. V/s. Kushal Bhan, AIR 1960 S. C.806 and Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. V/s. Its Workmen, AIR 1965 S. C.155, where disciplinary proceedings had been stayed till criminal cases were over. 10. Then reference was also made to another decision of the Court in Jang bahadur Singh V/s. Baij Nath Tiwari, AIR 1969 S. C.30 where the Court held as under: "the issue in the disciplinary proceedings is whether the employee is guilty of the charges of which it is proposed to take action against him. The same issue may arise for decision in a civil or criminal proceeding pending in a court. But the pendency of the court proceeding does not bar the taking of disciplinary action. The. power of taking such action is vested in the disciplinary authority. The civil or criminal court has no such power. The initiation and continuation of disciplinary proceedings in good faith is not calculated to obstruct or interfere with the course of justice in the pending court proceeding. The employee is free to move the court for an order restraining the continuance of the disciplinary proceedings. If he obtains a stay order, a wilful violation of the order would of course amount to contempt of court. In the absence of a stay order the disciplinary authority is free to exercise its lawful powers. " 11. In P. J. Sunderrajan V/s. Union trust of India, 1993 (3) S. L. R.21, there is a short judgment where the Court said as under: "heard parties. We have perused the records. We are of the view that the departmental enquiry should be stayed till the trial which is stated to be pending in the Court of the Chief Metropolitan magistrate, Madras, is completed. The enquiry shall accordingly stand stayed. However, it will be open to the respondents to proceed with the enquiry, if they so choose, after the Trial Court has rendered its judgment, whether or not any appeal is taken from that judgment to a higher court. We are told that the trial has been pending since May, 1989, and many witnesses have already been examined. Accordingly we except the Trial Court to complete the trial within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. " 12. We are told that the trial has been pending since May, 1989, and many witnesses have already been examined. Accordingly we except the Trial Court to complete the trial within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. " 12. In all these cases though the delinquent employee was workman, the facts are also not similar to that in the present case. 13. In Sulekh Chand and Salek chand V/s. Commissioner of Police and others, 1994 Suppl. (3) SCC 674, the court held that where there was acquittal of the Government servant on merits for offence under Sec.5 (2) of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and that the judgment became final, the need for any departmental enquiry stood obviated. In that case the Court also noted that the departmental enquiry itself had been dropped by the respondents. The Court also observed that it was settled law that though the delinquent official might get an acquittal on technical grounds, the authorities might conduct departmental enquiry on the self-same allegations and take appropriate disciplinary action. We do not find this decision which has been cited at the bar of any relevance in the present case. 14. A single Judge decision of the patna High Court in Santa Singh V/s. National Coal Development Corporation air 1968 Patna 300 was also referred to by the respondent. In this case the appellant also plaintiff was, had filed a suit for declaration that his dismissal was bad and that he be reinstated in service with all back wages. It was submitted that though the plaintiff had been acquitted in a criminal case on the charge of theft under Sec.379 and also for offence under Sec.411 of the Indian penal Code in the departmental proceeding held against him he was dismissed from service. The plaintiff contended that it was not open to hold the departmental proceeding subsequent to his acquittal. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed, so also his First Appeal and he had come to the High Court in the Second Appeal. This was also dismissed. In the course of discussion the learned Single Judge observed that it would not be proper for the department again to proceed on the same charges on which criminal case was instituted which ended in the acquittal of the employee. This was also dismissed. In the course of discussion the learned Single Judge observed that it would not be proper for the department again to proceed on the same charges on which criminal case was instituted which ended in the acquittal of the employee. This case has also no relevance to the present case before us though here again it was a case of workman. 15. In the present case the police after completion of investigation submitted its report. No case was found to have been made out against the respondent though Sinha, the cashier, had been challaned. The Learned Chief judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence only against Sinha. Under sub-section (8) of Sec.173 of the code of Criminal Procedure the police is further investigating the matter and has yet to submit its report after completion of the investigation. As far as the charges under the Prevention of corruption Act are concerned, the Special Judge cannot take cognizance of the same unless there is a sanction by the state Government. We are still in the realms of conjectures if the police will come up with the report disclosing any offence against the respondent and if the State Government would grant sanction for the prosecution of the respondent under the provisions of the prevention of Corruption Act. No final conclusion of the prosecution of the respondent has yet been reached and he is not facing any criminal trial. As noted above, we have not been shown as to what prejudice or embarrassment could be caused to the respondent in case the departmental proceedings proceed against him. Mr. Jha, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that in the departmental proceedings the respondent will have to disclose his defence which might prejudice him in the criminal trial which might be initiated against him. We have been unable to appreciate this argument as this would be so in any case and it is not the law that either the criminal prosecution or the departmental proceedings have invariably to be stayed. 16. Huge loss running into lakhs of rupees has been caused to the exchequer. As to how the government revenue have been defalcated there have been three modes. The third mode was that though the money was received from Tahshildars no record was maintained and the amount so received was not deposited. 16. Huge loss running into lakhs of rupees has been caused to the exchequer. As to how the government revenue have been defalcated there have been three modes. The third mode was that though the money was received from Tahshildars no record was maintained and the amount so received was not deposited. Under this mode the defalcation is only to the extent of Rs.13,500. The major amount of claim made in the civil suit related to short deposit and non-deposit and interest which, apart from other claims, amounted to over Rs.33.21 lakhs. We think in a case like this the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach and cannot be oblivian to the practical requirements or consequences. No interference is called by this Court in the departmental proceedings against the respondent even though the matter is further being investigated. All the charges on the basis of which the respondent has been proceeded departmentally are not subject-matter of criminal investigation at the moment and yet the Learned Single Judge stayed whole of the departmental proceedings. We also do not think that even otherwise also the Learned Single. Judge should have stayed part of the departmental proceedings and allowed other part to continue. 17. It is not necessary for us to enter the domain of guess work or probabilities. It can then well be that the police after investigation may not come up with any charge under the prevention of Corruption Act against the respondent and in that eventuality the State may not give sanction for his prosecution under Sec.19 thereof. We think unless a clear case of prejudice is made out the State should be left free to deal with its delinquent officer and the Court should not be a platform readily available for stay of the proceedings against such an officer. 18. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that no case has been made out for stay of the departmental proceedings against the respondent. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order of the Learned Single judge is set aside and the writ application is dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs.1000/- rule is discharged. Appeal Allowed.