Judgment :- P. SATHASIVAM, J. Aggrieved by the order of the second respondent, dated November 3, 1995, asking the petitioner to attend the departmental enquiry, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the same and issue direction to the respondents to suspend the departmental enquiry till the finalisation of the criminal cases filed in C.C. Nos. 15 and 16 of 1995 on the file of Special Judge for CBI and State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Cases, Madurai. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder : According to him, in 1979, the petitioner started his career as junior assistant-cum-cashier in the first respondent-bank. In August, 1984, he was promoted as senior clerk-cum-cashier. In 1991, he was transferred to Ervadi. In May, 1993, basing on certain allegations, the petitioner, the Manager and the Officer of the Ervadi Branch were placed under suspension. Subsequently, in the end of 1993, the officer was reinstated on the payment of the alleged misappropriated amount. Likewise, the Manager of the Ervadi Branch was also reinstated on the payment of misappropriated amount. As far as the petitioner is concerned, inspite of repeated representations he is still under suspension. For the alleged misappropriation, criminal proceedings were initiated as against the petitioner in C.C. Nos. 15 and 16 of 1995 under Sections 409, 477A, 201 and 420 of IPC read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the file of the Special Judge for CBI and State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Cases, Madurai. In the aforesaid criminal cases, chargesheets have been filed. For the same set of allegations, departmental proceedings, were also initiated and charges have been granted in the proceedings, dated November 11, 1993. The charges framed in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal cases are one and the same though the chargememo has been issued as early as in 1993, till August, 1995, no further steps have been taken in the departmental enquiry. After filing of the chargesheet in the criminal cases on August 22, 1995, the petitioner was informed the appointment of enquiry officer and the commencement of the enquiry. Since the subject matter of the criminal case and the departmental enquiry is one and the same, any finding in the departmental proceedings will have a direct consequence in the criminal case. After filing of the chargesheet in the criminal cases on August 22, 1995, the petitioner was informed the appointment of enquiry officer and the commencement of the enquiry. Since the subject matter of the criminal case and the departmental enquiry is one and the same, any finding in the departmental proceedings will have a direct consequence in the criminal case. Hence, the petitioner submitted a representation on November 2, 1995, for suspending the departmental proceedings and the same was rejected by the impugned order of the second respondent, dated November 3, 1995. Hence, the present writ petition.The first respondent-bank has filed a counter-affidavit disputing the various averments made by the petitioner. It is stated that the internal investigation revealed the indulgence of the petitioner in the fraudulent activities and misappropriation of Rs. 1, 31, 800. As the investigation revealed that there was no mala fide against the other two officers, but only negligence, the bank decided to revoke their suspension and reinstate them in service provided they make good a sum of Rs. 20, 000 and Rs. 2, 303.75 respectively. Therefore, the case against the two officers is different from the case against the petitioner. As far as the departmental enquiry is concerned, petitioner has been charged with 13 counts of charges, whereas only 9 counts out of this is the subject matter of the criminal proceedings. Further, it is settled law that criminal law proceedings is not a bar to the departmental proceedings because the object of both the proceedings are different. With these averments, the first respondent-bank prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard Ms. K. Suguna learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N. G. R. Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent-bank. The only point for consideration is whether the departmental proceedings are to be stayed till the disposal of criminal cases. There is no dispute that in respect of alleged misappropriation of the funds of first respondent-bank, criminal proceedings were initiated as against the petitioner in C.C. Nos. 15 and 16 of 1995 under Sections 409, 477A 201 and 420 of I.P.C. read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1) C & D of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the same are pending on the file of Special Judge, CBI and State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Cases, Madurai. 15 and 16 of 1995 under Sections 409, 477A 201 and 420 of I.P.C. read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1) C & D of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the same are pending on the file of Special Judge, CBI and State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Cases, Madurai. In the above said criminal cases, chargesheet has also been filed. According to the petitioner, for the same set of allegations, departmental proceedings were also initiated and charges have been framed by proceedings, dated November 11, 1993. In other words, according to the petitioner, charges levelled in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal proceedings are one and the same. However it is the case of the first respondent-Bank that as far as the departmental enquiry is concerned, the petitioner has been charged with 13 counts, whereas only 9 counts out of this is the subject matter of criminal proceedings. It is also contended that pendency of criminal proceedings is not a bar to the departmental enquiry. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed additional typed set containing particulars of the charges in the departmental proceedings as well as in the criminal cases.It is true that in the departmental enquiry there are 13 charges alleged against the petitioner. However, in the criminal prosecution, only 9 counts/instances have been shown against the petitioner. After pointing out different charges in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal proceedings, Sri N. G. R. Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents, would contend that in spite of pendency of criminal proceedings, there is no bar to continue the departmental proceedings. He also contended that the petitioner has been enjoying the benefit of stay granted on March 18, 1996 and he has been getting subsistence allowance without the bank being able to go ahead with the departmental enquiry. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, among other decisions, it is useful to refer the latest decision of the Supreme Court, in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines, Ltd. and another 1998 AIR(SC) 1416 : 1998 (3) SCC 679 : 1999-I-LLJ-1094. The question regarding criminal prosecution as well as simultaneous departmental enquiry was considered by their Lordships in the above referred case. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines, Ltd. and another 1998 AIR(SC) 1416 : 1998 (3) SCC 679 : 1999-I-LLJ-1094. The question regarding criminal prosecution as well as simultaneous departmental enquiry was considered by their Lordships in the above referred case. After considering various earlier decisions of the Supreme Court, their Lordships have concluded the following points for consideration : "The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are : (i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. (ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employees is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case.(iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employees on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the chargesheet. (iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. (v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest." In the light of the said points, now I shall consider the claim of both parties. I have already referred to the information furnished by the first respondent, namely, 13 charges have been laid down against the petitioner in the departmental enquiry and only 9 counts out of the 13 is the subject matter of the criminal proceedings. I have already referred to the information furnished by the first respondent, namely, 13 charges have been laid down against the petitioner in the departmental enquiry and only 9 counts out of the 13 is the subject matter of the criminal proceedings. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has very much relied on certain decisions of the Supreme Court holding that criminal proceedings is not a bar to the departmental enquiry because the object of both these proceedings are different. Sri N. G. R. Prasad has also very much relied on the decision of mine, reported in A. L. Chidambaram v. Indian Overseas Bank Madras, 1998 (3) LLN 356. In the light of the conditions prescribed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in as well as the earlier decisions including the decisions of mine referred above, I have carefully persued the charges in the departmental proceedings as well as in the criminal prosecution. After carefully analysing and comparing both the charges, though certain similarities are there, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, the charges in the departmental proceedings are not grave in nature involving complicated question of law and fact. Further, this is evident from the perusal of the nature of offence as reflected in the chargesheet. The petitioner-delinquent can very well vindicate his case in the departmental enquiry. As observed in the said Supreme Court decision, i.e. 1999-I-LLJ-1094 (supra), the factors mentioned at (i) and (iii) cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental enquiry and due regard should be given to the fact that departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. Admittedly, departmental proceedings were initiated in 1993 and the petitioner is being paid subsistence allowance. In such circumstances there will not be any impediment for the petitioner in participating in the departmental enquiry.In the light of what is stated above, there is no merit in the claim made by the petitioner and I do not find any error or infirmity in the impugned notice of the second respondent, dated November 1995. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P. Nos. 5120 of 1996 and 23595 of 2000 are closed.