ORDER: By consent of both parties the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. The petitioner has approached this court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent not to proceed with the departmental enquiry against him, pending trial before the Special Court, Madurai, in C.C.No.33 of 1996 and 34 of 1996 on various grounds. 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: The petitioner is an Officer working in the Indian Overseas Bank under the control of Nagapattinam Regional Office. While he was functioning as Assistant Manager/Officer incharge of Arabic college Extension Counter, on the allegation that he has misappropriated a sum of Rs.3,70,000. Delhi Special Police Establishment Madras Branch registered a case for the alleged offences under Secs.420 ,467 ,467 , read with 471 , 477-A of Indian Penal Code and Sec.13 (2) read with Sec.13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner was suspended under Rule 12(l)(a) of the I.O.B. Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976 on 12.11.1994. It is further contended that the respondent on 19.5.1995 issued a notice of show-cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. The petitioner gave a reply stating that since the matter has already been taken by the C.B.I., Madras and the matter is pending in the criminal Court, it is not fair on his part to give any explanation. For the hearing dated 21.1.1997 the petitioner sent representation requesting the respondent not to proceed with the departmental enquiry, as the matter is pending in the Criminal Court for the same charges. It is also contended that if the departmental enquiry precedes the trial before the Special Court, he will be greatly prejudiced. On the other hand, according to him, if the trial proceeds and if necessary the respondent decides to take any departmental proceedings subsequently the respondent will not be prejudiced. Inspite of the representations made to stay the departmental enquiry till criminal trial is over, the respondent has not given any reply but he is proceeding to conduct the departmental enquiry at his choice and already two hearings are over and he has fixed the third hearing on 21.1.1997. In those circumstances, he has approached this Court for necessary direction as stated above. On 20.1.1997 this Court has entertained the writ petition and stayed the departmental proceedings. 3. In those circumstances, he has approached this Court for necessary direction as stated above. On 20.1.1997 this Court has entertained the writ petition and stayed the departmental proceedings. 3. The respondent has filed W.M.P.No.14571 of 1993 for vacation of the interim stay granted on 20.1.1997. The case of the respondent as seen from the counter affidavit is briefly stated hereunder: At the outset the writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioner has no right to seek a prayer for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents Bank not to proceed with the departmental enquiry until conclusion of the criminal case pending against him, since he has no legal right or corresponding legal obligation in the respondent Bank. It is further contended that the petitioner forged bank documents and raised loans on fake deposit receipts. He also made fictitious entries in the books of the bank and caused wrongful loss to the bank to the extent of Rs.4.32 lakhs. He was therefore, suspended from bank service on 12.11.94. Central Bureau of Investigation registered a criminal case against him and the charge sheet framed by them against the petitioner was filed in the Sessions Court, Trichy. The case is still pending in Court. The petitioner is being prosecuted for having committed various offences under Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act, whereas the charge sheet dated 19.5.1995 issued to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority is in respect of various misconduct committed by him which are punishable under the Indian Overseas Bank Officer Employees’ Discipline and Appeal Regulation, 1976. Further, the disciplinary proceedings cannot be delayed unduly and the delinquent cannot as a matter of course seek stay of the same on the ground of pendency of criminal proceedings. Moreover, the petitioner has voluntarily admitted his guilt in his letters dated 24.10.1994 and 11.11.1994 to the Regional Manager of the respondent Bank, Nagapattinam and also gave a confession letter in writing on 27.10.1994 before the Investigating Officer of the Bank and also repaid Rs.85,000 in five instalments being a portion of the misappropriated amount. The petitioner also assured in writing to repay the balance of the misappropriated amount to the Bank. Inasmuch as there is an admission of the guilt and voluntary repayment of the misappropriated amount, no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner in the departmental proceedings are continued. The petitioner also assured in writing to repay the balance of the misappropriated amount to the Bank. Inasmuch as there is an admission of the guilt and voluntary repayment of the misappropriated amount, no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner in the departmental proceedings are continued. In those circumstances, they prayed for vacation of the interim order as well as dismissal of the main writ petition. 4. In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard Mr. B.S. Gnanadesikan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent. 5. The only contention of the learned counsel for the, petitioner is that till the criminal trial is over, the domestic enquiry against the petitioner has to be stayed, since the charges both in the domestic enquiry and before the criminal Court are one and the same. In order to substantiate the above contention, Mr. Gnanadesikan relied on the following decisions: (i) Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd v. Kaushal Bhan A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 806;(1960) 3 S.C.R. 237 (ii) Tata Oil Mills v. Workmen A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 155;(1964) 2 Lab.L.J. 113;(1965) 2 S.C.J. 281 (iii) Kushashwar v. M/s.Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. Kushashwar v. M/s.Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. Kushashwar v. M/s.Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 2118 6. On the other hand, Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent, after taking me through the “charges before the criminal court and in the departmental enquiry, submitted that both are not different and in the interest of the respondent-Bank and of the fact that the petitioner has committed mis-appropriation to the tune of Rs.four lakhs, there is no need to stay the departmental enquiry. Further, the petitioner has already admitted the guilt and repaid a part of the misappropriated amount. In those circumstance, according to him, there is no need to stay the domestic enquiry till the disposal of the criminal case. In order to strengthen his case, he has very much relied on the following two decisions of the Supreme Court: (i) State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Manna State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Manna State of Rajasthan v. B.K.Manna (1996)4 S.C.C. 417 (ii) Depot. Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. v. Mohd Yousuf Miya Depot. Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. v. Mohd Yousuf Miya Depot. Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. v. Mohd Yousuf Miya (1997)2 S.C.C. 699 7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions in detail. 8. Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. v. Mohd Yousuf Miya Depot. Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. v. Mohd Yousuf Miya Depot. Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. v. Mohd Yousuf Miya (1997)2 S.C.C. 699 7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions in detail. 8. The petitioner while functioning as Assistant Manager/Officer incharge of Arabic college extension counter, Central Bureau of Investigation filed a case against him on the allegation that he has misappropriated a sum of Rs.3,70,000. Now the said criminal case is pending before the Madurai Special Court in C.C.No.33 of 1996 and 34 of 1996. After issuance of show-cause notice, the respondents have initiated disciplinary action under Indian Overseas Bank Employees’ Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976. In order to appreciate the rival contentions as well as the legal position cited by both the learned counsel, it is to be noted that the petitioner is being prosecuted under the Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act for various criminal offences such as cheating the Bank (Sec.420 ,I.P.C) forging valuable securities (Fixed Deposit Receipts), forging the signatures of depositors in the deposit receipts, forging the signature of cashier in the voucher (Secs.467 ,468 , I.P.C) Criminal breach of trust (Sec.409,I.P.C). Falsification of accounts (Sec.477-A, I.P.C). Obtaining pecuniary advantage by corrupt means and misappropriation (Sec.13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act). The petitioner is being charged in the departmental enquiry with serious misconduct in having removed blank deposit receipts from the respondent bank, preparing fake deposit receipts, forging the signatures of the depositors and cashier, misappropriation of clients money, manipulating Bank accounts. The learned counsel for the respondent brought to my notice that charge No.7 in the departmental enquiry is not the subject matter in the criminal case. 9. Now, in this back ground, I shall consider the three decisions cited by Mr. B.S. Gnanadesikan in support of his contention. The learned counsel for the respondent brought to my notice that charge No.7 in the departmental enquiry is not the subject matter in the criminal case. 9. Now, in this back ground, I shall consider the three decisions cited by Mr. B.S. Gnanadesikan in support of his contention. In Delhi Cloth and General Mills v. Kushal Bhan Delhi Cloth and General Mills v. Kushal Bhan Delhi Cloth and General Mills v. Kushal Bhan A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 806 the observation of the two Judges Bench is relevant for the present case and the same is extracted hereunder: “It is true that very often employers stay enquiries pending the decision of the criminal trial courts and that is fair, but we cannot say that principles of natural justice require that an employer must wait for the decision at least of the criminal trial court before taking action against an employee. In Shri Bimal Kanta Mukherjee v. Messrs.Newsman s Printing Works Shri Bimal Kanta Mukherjee v. Messrs. Newsman s Printing Works Shri Bimal Kanta Mukherjee v. Messrs. Newsman s Printing Works 1936 Lab 1.C.188 this was the view taken by the Labour Appellate Tribunal. We may, however, add that if 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 may not be prejudiced.” Relying on the above passage, Mr. Gnanadesikan submitted that in view of the grave nature and of the fact that the charges involved are serious in nature, as pointed out by Their Lordships, the departmental enquiry has to be stayed. In the said decision, Their Lordships after holding that the case before them is a case of very simple in nature and found that employer cannot be blamed for the course adopted by him. 10. In the said decision, Their Lordships after holding that the case before them is a case of very simple in nature and found that employer cannot be blamed for the course adopted by him. 10. The other decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is Tata Oil Mills v. Workmen A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 155;(1964) 2 Lab.L.J. 113;(1965) 2 S.C.J. 281 It is a 3 Judges Bench decision wherein Their Lordships have referred the earlier decision in Delhi Cloth and General Mills v. Kushal Bhan Delhi Cloth and General Mills v. Kushal Bhan Delhi Cloth and General Mills v. Kushal Bhan A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 806 The relevant passage in para 9 is extracted hereunder: “There is yet another point which remains to be considered. The Industrial Tribunal appears to have taken the view that since criminal proceedings had been started against Raghavan, the domestic enquiry should have been stayed pending the final disposal of the said criminal proceedings. As this Court has held in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Kaushal Bhan Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Kaushal Bhan Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Kaushal Bhan 1960 3 S.C.R. 227:A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 806 it is desirable that if the incident giving rise to a charge framed against a workman in a domestic enquiry is being tried in a Criminal Court, the employer should stay the domestic enquiry pending the final disposal of the criminal case. It would be particularly appropriate to adopt such a course where the charge against the workman is of a grave character, because in such a case, it would be unfair to compel the workmen to disclose the defence which he may take before the criminal court.” 11. The other decision referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner is Kusheshwar v. M/s.Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Kusheshwar v. M/s.Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Kusheshwar v. M/s.Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 2118 It is a 2 Judges Division Bench judgment. The observation referred to by their Lordships in the said judgment is in the following manner: “The view expressed in the three case of this Court seem to support the position that while there could be no legal bar for simultaneous proceedings being taken, yet there may 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 employee 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 conceive judicial consideration and the Court will decide in the given circumstances of a particular case as to whether the disciplinary proceedings should be interdicated, pending criminal trial. As we have already stated that it is 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. For the disposal of the present case, we do not think it necessary to say anything more particularly when we do not intend to lay down any general guideline. In the instant case, the criminal action and the disciplinary proceedings are grounded upon the same set of facts. We are of the view that the disciplinary proceedings should have been stayed and the High Court was not right in interfering with the trial Court's order of injunction which had been affirmed in appeal.” An analysis of the above three decisions no doubt, prima facie shows that if the criminal action and the disciplinary proceedings are grounded upon the same set of facts, the disciplinary proceedings should have been stayed. As a matter of fact, Their Lordships in the three Judges decision, namely, Tata Oil Mills v. Workmen A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 155;(1964) 2 Lab.L.J. 113;(1965) 2 S.C.J. 281 have observed that: “to say that domestic enquiries may be stayed pending criminal trial is very different from anything (sic) that if an employer proceeds with the domestic enquiry inspite of the fact that the criminal trial is pending, the enquiry for that reason alone is vitiated and the conclusion reached in such an enquiry is either bad in law or mala fide” Likewise, in the third decision, namely, Kusheshwar v. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Kusheshwar v. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Kusheshwar v. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 2118 Their Lordships have also observed that: “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 will decide in the given circumstances of a particular case as to whether the disciplinary proceedings should be interdicted pending criminal trial.” In the very same judgment Their Lordships have also observed that: “it is either possible nor advisable to evolve a hard and fast, strait-jacket formula valid for all cases and of general application without regard to the particularities of the individual situation.” In the light of the factual position as stated earlier, in our case, I am unable to countenance the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the departmental enquiry has to be stayed till the trial of the criminal case filed against him. 12. Now 1 shall refer the decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent. In State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena (1996)6 S.C.C. 417 Their Lordships after considering the earlier decisions of the Apex Court, viz. 12. Now 1 shall refer the decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent. In State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena (1996)6 S.C.C. 417 Their Lordships after considering the earlier decisions of the Apex Court, viz. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Kaushal Bhan Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Kaushal Bhan Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Kaushal Bhan A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 806:1960 3 S.C.R. 227have held thus: “It would be evident from the above decisions that each of them starts with the indisputable proposition that there is no legal bar for both proceedings to go on simultaneously and then say that in certain situations, it may not be ‘desirable’, ‘advisable’ or ‘appropriate’ to proceed with the disciplinary enquiry when a criminal case is pending on identical charges. The staying of disciplinary proceedings, it is emphasised, is a matter to be determined having regard to the facts and circumstances of a given case and that no hard and fast rules can be enunciated in that behalf. The only ground suggested in the above decisions as constituting a valid ground for staying the disciplinary proceedings is that “the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced.” This ground has, however, been hedged in by providing further that this may be done in cases of grave nature involving questions of fact and law. In our respectful opinion, it means that not only the charges must be grave but that the case must involve complicated questions of law and fact. Moreover, ‘advisability’, ‘desirability’, or ‘propriety’, as the case may be, has to be determined in each case taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case. The ground indicated in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Kaushal Bhan Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Kaushal Bhan Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Kaushal Bhan A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 806:1960 3 S.C.R. 227 and Tata Oil Mills v. Workmen A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 155;(1964) 2 Lab.L.J. 113;(1965) 2 S.C.J. 281 is also not an invariable mile. The ground indicated in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Kaushal Bhan Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Kaushal Bhan Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Kaushal Bhan A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 806:1960 3 S.C.R. 227 and Tata Oil Mills v. Workmen A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 155;(1964) 2 Lab.L.J. 113;(1965) 2 S.C.J. 281 is also not an invariable mile. It is only a factory which will go into the scales while judging the advisability or desirability of staying the disciplinary enquiry cannot be - and should not be - delayed unduly, so far as criminal cases are concerned, it is well known that they drag on endlessly where high officials or persons holding high public offices are involved. They get bogged down on one or the other ground. They hardly ever reach a prompt conclusion. That is the reality in spite of repeated advice and admonitions from this Court and the High Courts. If a criminal case is unduly delayed that may itself be a good ground for going ahead with the disciplinary enquiry even where the disciplinary proceedings are held over in an earlier stage. The interests of administration and good government demand that these proceedings are concluded expeditiously. It must be remembered that interests of administration demand that undesirable elements are thrown out and any charge of misdemeanours is enquired into promptly. The disciplinary proceedings are meant not really to punish the guilty but to keep the administrative machinery unsullied by getting rid of bad elements. The interest of the delinquent officer also lies in prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. If he is not guilty of the charges, his honour should be vindicated at the earliest possible moment and if he is guilty, he should be dealt with promptly according to law. It is not also in the interest of administration that persons accused of serious misdemeanor should be continued in office indefinitely. i.e, for long periods awaiting the result of criminal proceedings. It is not in the interest of administration. It only serves the interest of the guilty and dishonest. While it is not possible to enumerate the various factors, for and against the stay of disciplinary proceedings, we found it necessary to emphasis some of the important considerations in view of the fact that very often the disciplinary proceedings are being stayed for long periods pending criminal proceedings. It only serves the interest of the guilty and dishonest. While it is not possible to enumerate the various factors, for and against the stay of disciplinary proceedings, we found it necessary to emphasis some of the important considerations in view of the fact that very often the disciplinary proceedings are being stayed for long periods pending criminal proceedings. Stay of disciplinary proceedings cannot be, and should not be, a matter of course. All the relevant factors, for and against, should be weighed and a decision taken keeping in view the various principles laid down in the decisions referred to above.” Their Lordships have also observed thus: “There is yet another reason. 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) are established and, if established, what sentence should be imposed upon him. The standard or proof, the mode of enquiry and the rules governing the enquiry and trial both the cases are entirely distinct and different. Staying of disciplinary proceedings pending criminal proceedings, to repeat, should not be a matter of course but a considered decision. Even if stayed at one stage, the decision may require reconsideration if the criminal case gets unduly delayed.” In the said case, a Memo of charges against the delinquent officer was served and he submitted detailed reply running into 90 pages controverting the allegations levelled against him. Criminal case against him was also filed on 15.5.1993. The delinquent officer promptly went to the Tribunal and got the disciplinary proceedings stayed. More than six years have passed in that case. The charges were served on the delinquent 4 years back. He has already disclosed his defence in his elaborate and detailed statement filed on 9.2.1993. In such circumstance, after formulating the principles as stated above, Their Lordships have held thus: “There is no question of his being compelled to disclose his defence in the disciplinary proceedings which would prejudice him in a criminal case. The charges against the respondent are very serious. In such circumstance, after formulating the principles as stated above, Their Lordships have held thus: “There is no question of his being compelled to disclose his defence in the disciplinary proceedings which would prejudice him in a criminal case. The charges against the respondent are very serious. They pertain to misappropriation of public funds to the tune of more man rupees one crore.” In our case also as seen from the counter affidavit, the petitioner has made a confession statement admitting his guilt and, as a matter of fact, he has repaid a major portion of the amount alleged to have been misappropriated by him. I am of the view that the decision of the Apex Court referred above is directly on this point and the same is applicable to our case. Considering the facts in both the cases, I do not find any justification in staying the departmental proceedings till the criminal trial. 13. The other decision cited by the learned counsel for the respondent is Depot Manager, A.P.S.R. T.C. v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya Depot Manager, A.P.S.R. T.C. v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya Depot Manager, A.P.S.R. T.C. v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya (1997)2 S.C.C. 699 In this latest 3 Judges decision, Their Lordships have considered all the earlier decisions including Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Kaushal Bhan Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Kaushal Bhan Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Kaushal Bhan A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 806:1960 3 S.C.R. 237 and Tata Oil Mills v. Workmen A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 155;(1964) 2 Lab.L.J. 113;(1965) 2 S.C.J. 281After extracting the law laid down by Their Lordships in (1996)6 S.C.C. 417 Their Lordships have concluded thus: “We are in respectful agreement with the above view, the purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution are two different and district aspects. The criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for 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 omission of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. It would, therefore, be expedient mat the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible. So crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. It would, therefore, be expedient mat the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible. It is not, therefore, desirable to lay down any guidelines as inflexible rules in which the departmental proceedings may or may not be stayed pending trial in criminal case against the delinquent officer. Each case requires to be considered in the backdrop of its own facts and circumstances. There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental enquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the charge in the criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law. Offence generally implies infringement of public (sic duty) 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 proceedings relate to conduct or breach of duty of the delinquent officer to punish him for his misconduct defined under the relevant statutory rules or law. That the strict standard of proof or applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded is a settled legal position. The enquiry in the departmental proceedings relates to the conduct of the delinquent officer and proof in that behalf is not as high as in an offence in criminal charge. It is seen that invariable the departmental enquiry has to be conducted expeditiously so as to effectuate efficiency in public administration and the criminal trial will take its own course. The nature of evidence in criminal trial is entirely different from the departmental proceedings. In the former, prosecution is to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the touchstone of human conduct. The standard of proof in the departmental proceedings is not the same as of the criminal trial. The evidence also is different from the standard point of the Evidence Act. The evidence required in the departmental enquiry is not regulated by the Evidence Act. 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. The evidence also is different from the standard point of the Evidence Act. The evidence required in the departmental enquiry is not regulated by the Evidence Act. 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.” 14. The law laid down by the Apex Court in the above referred two decisions clearly shows that there is no need to stay the departmental proceedings till the disposal of the criminal case. No doubt, Mr. Gnanadesikan while pointing out a passage from the decision Depot. Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. v. Mohd Yousuf Miya Depot. Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. v. Mohd Yousuf Miya Depot. Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. v. Mohd Yousuf Miya (1997)2 S.C.C. 699 submitted that inspite of the law laid down by Their Lordships each case has to be considered depending on its own facts and circumstances. It is true that Their Lordships have observed that “it is always a question of fact to be considered in each case depending on its own facts and circumstances”. I have already mentioned that in the last two decisions Their Lordships have considered the three decisions referred to by Mr. Gnanadesikan. As a matter of fact, the facts in the decision State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Manna State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Manna State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Manna (1996)4 S.C.C. 417 are identical and similar to our case. There also it is a case of misappropriation and inspite of holding that the charges are grave, Their Lordships in the said decision, allowed the departmental enquiry to pro-ceed further inspite of the fact that criminal trial is pending on that date. I have already extracted the charges before the criminal case as well as in the departmental proceedings. Apart from this, in the counter affidavit, it is specifically stated that the petitioner has voluntarily admitted his guilt in his letter dated 24.10.1994 and 11.11.1994 to the Regional Manager of respondent Bank, Nagapattinam and also gave a confession letter in writing on 27. 10.1994 before the Investigating Officer of the Bank, The petitioner has also repaid Rs.85,000 in 5 instalments and assured to repay the balance of the amount. 10.1994 before the Investigating Officer of the Bank, The petitioner has also repaid Rs.85,000 in 5 instalments and assured to repay the balance of the amount. In those circumstance, I am unable to countenance the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 15. Under these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. I make it clear that I have not cast and I should not be understood to have cast any reflection on the merits of either party's case. What I have said is confined to the question at issue viz., desirability of advisability of staying the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner pending the criminal proceedings against him. B.S.-----Petition dismissed.