Judgment : 1. By consent of both parties, this matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. Petitioner’s case is that a criminal proceeding is pending against her in respect of a charge which is also the subject matter of a domestic enquiry. The charge sheet was issued to her by the employer, Union Bank of India, on 212. 1993. The charge sheet runs into five pages dealing with various acts for omission and commissions alleged to have been done by the petitioner amounting to misconduct. In respect of some of those charges, the misconduct were not gross but minor. .3. Petitioner had filed a writ petition on the very same grounds as those raised in this petition in W.P.No.18104 of 1994 by the time of filling which enquiry had commenced after the petitioner had filed her statement of defence denying the charges. Learned single Judge of this Court dismissed that W.P. holding that there was no case made out for stay of the departmental enquiry. Two reasons were given namely (1) that charge sheet had not been filed against the petitioner at that time and (2) that the departmental enquiry had already been commenced and was half way through. It was also noticed that the petitioner had submitted her explanation. Learned single Judge observed: .“....The petitioner had already submitted her explanation and the plea that the completion of the enquiry will prejudice the petitioner’s defence in the criminal trial if any, does not appeal to me. Therefore, on the facts of the present case, I am not inclined to stay the departmental enquiry pending the criminal proceedings.” That order was made on 210. 1994. Petitioner had filed an appeal against that order in W.A.No.1372 of 1994. The Division Bench after considering the petitioner’s case held that “.......the learned single Judge is justified in refusing to entertain the writ petition and we see no ground to interfere with the same.” 4. The Division Bench also observed:- “If the disciplinary proceedings is not concluded even before the charge sheet is filed and trial is commenced, it is open to the appellant to invoke the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for appropriate relief.” 5. The charge sheet against the petitioner was filed on 294. This writ petition came to be filed immediately thereafter and further proceedings in the departmental enquiry were stayed on 112. 1994. The charge sheet against the petitioner was filed on 294. This writ petition came to be filed immediately thereafter and further proceedings in the departmental enquiry were stayed on 112. 1994. It is submitted at the Bar by the counsel that the examination of the witnesses for the management has been completed and the examination of the witnesses for the delinquent is to commence. .6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is a fit case where the departmental enquiry should not be allowed to continue as the charge sheet had been in filed. Counsel referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajastan V. B.K. Meena and others, 1996 (2) LLN 1269 wherein the Court observed that disciplinary proceedings and enquiry cannot be and should not be delayed unduly and stay should not be granted as a matter of course and that proceeding should be concluded expeditiously. 7. The judgment relied on by the counsel is not of any assistance whatsoever to the petitioner. The Court in that case held that after respondent had disclosed his defence in the domestic enquiry initiated, there was no question of any preference to such a deliquent on the ground that the continuance of the domestic enquiry would compel him to disclose the defence in the criminal proceedings prematurely. The Court further held that “Further the approach and the objective in the criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings is altogether distinct and different. In the disciplinary proceedings, the question is whether the respondent is guilty of such conduct as would merit his removal from service or a lesser punishment, as the case may be, whereas in the criminal proceedings the question is whether the offences registered against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act (and the Indian Penal Code) if any arc established, and if established what sentence should be imposed upon him. The standard o f proof, the mode of enquiry and the rules governing the enquiry and trial in both the cases are entirely distinct and different.” On the facts of that case, the court set aside the order of stay that has been granted by the Central Administrative Tribunal and directed continuance of the departmental enquiry. 8. The standard o f proof, the mode of enquiry and the rules governing the enquiry and trial in both the cases are entirely distinct and different.” On the facts of that case, the court set aside the order of stay that has been granted by the Central Administrative Tribunal and directed continuance of the departmental enquiry. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the decision rendered by a learned single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Kajal Kumar Das v. Kudremukh Iron Ore Company Ltd., and others , 1997 (1) LLN 944 decided on 9. 1995, long prior to the decision of the Apex Court, already referred to. This decision cannot be of any avail to the petitioner in the light of the law declared by the Supreme Court subsequently to which reference has already been made. .9. The law declared in the case of State of Rajasthan was by a Bench of two learned Judges of the Apex Court. That the same view has been reiterated by a larger Bench of three learned Judges of the Apex Court in the case of Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya etc. , 1997 (II) LLJ 902. The Court at para 5 of the judgment referred to the case of State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena and others , 1997 (I) LLJ 746 and extracted substantial portions the statute and after having set out the ratio of the judgment in that case, observed ‘We are in respectful agreement with the above view. The purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecutionare two different and distinct aspects. The criminal prosecution is launched for an offence in violation of a duty the offender owes to the society or for breach of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. So crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of commission of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. It would therefore, be expedient that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible..........There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with the departmental enquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the charge in the criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated questions of law, and fact. It would therefore, be expedient that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible..........There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with the departmental enquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the charge in the criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated questions of law, and fact. Offence generally implies infringement of public, as distinguished from mere private rights punishable under criminal law. When trial for criminal offence is conducted it should be in accordance with proof of the offence as per the evidence defined under the provisions of the Evidence Act. Converse is the case of departmental enquiry. The enquiry in a departmental proceeding relates to conduct or breach of duty of the delinquent officer to punish him for his misconduct defined under the relev ant statutory rules or law. That strict standard of proof or applicability of Evidence Act stands excluded is a settled legal position.” 10. The Court after having declared the law laid down the guidelines, as under: “Under these circumstances, what is required to be seen is whether the departmental enquiry would seriously prejudice the delinquent in his defence at the trial in a criminal case. It is always a question of fact to be considered in each case depending on its own facts and circumstances.” .11. Having regard to the law declared by the Apex Court in the decisions aforementioned, it is clear that the petitioner is not entitled to stay of the disciplinary proceedings. No question of prejudice to the delinquent arises as the defence statement was filed several years ago, even long prior to the filing of the report in the criminal court. The enquiry is in midway. Witnesses for the management have already been examined. The consequences of the domestic enquiry are clearly different from the consequences of conviction in a criminal trial. The duty cast is the public duty in the criminal trial whereas the branches of duty considered in a domestic enquiry are of a private character. Standards of proof as laid down by the Apex Court, are different in the two proceedings. 12. Having regard all these circumstances, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. Consequently, WMPs, are dismissed.