V. ESWARAIAH, J. ( 1 ) THIS Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents - The Chief Superintendent (Mech), Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, visakhapatnam and the Deputy Chief personnel Manager, (Enquiry Officer), visakhapatnam Steel Plant in proceeding with the departmental enquiry vide charge-sheet dated 01-09-1998 as illegal, arbitrary and against the decided law of the land. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that on 01-09-1998 outside the office premises a dispute arose between the Manager (Operations) and the petitioner regarding the entry of the petitioner in discharging his duties as technician and in the said tug, heated exchange of words took place between them and the Manager (Operations) fell into a pit. The falling of the said Manager (Operations) into the pit assumed by him that the petitioner assaulted him and accordingly a police complaint was filed with the Steel Plant L and o Police Station, and they in turn registered a case stating that on 01-09-1998. Basing on the said complaint, the 1st respondent issued a charge-sheet on 01-09-1998 calling an explanation from the petitioner. It is further submitted that witnesses a. Madhusudhan Babu, Technician, B. Appa rao Technician, S. Appa Rao, Technician and Y. Siva Sagar Rao in the departmental enquiry on behalf of the Department and in the Criminial Case also the said persons were cited as witnesses, and therefore, as witnesses are same in both the departmental enquiry and in the criminal case on the same incident and as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Limited the departmental enquiry was to be stayed. ( 3 ) IN reply to the allegations, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted based on the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents that on 01-09-1998, mr. K. Srinivas, Manager (Operations) of sms Department of Visakhapatnam Steel plant submitted a representation narrating the incident that took place at 9-35 a. m. and in the said representation, the said Srinivas stated about the indecent, riotous and disorderly behaviour of the petitioner with him, a superior officer of the petitioner. The said Srinivas also submitted a complaint to the police which is registered as FIR no. 27/98 under Sections 353, 341 and 506 of Indian Penal Code on the file of Steel plant L and O Police Station, Visakhapatnam. The said Srinivas also submitted a complaint to the police which is registered as FIR no. 27/98 under Sections 353, 341 and 506 of Indian Penal Code on the file of Steel plant L and O Police Station, Visakhapatnam. After investigation, the Police Station L and O filed a charge-sheet in the Court of viii Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka, visakhapatnam for criminal action. Departmental action is separately initiated for disciplinary action under the certified standing Orders of the Company. The charge-sheet dated 01-09-1998 was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to submit an explanation. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the said charge-sheet on 10-10-1998. It is further submitted that since the explanation offered by the petitioner was not satisfactory, the respondents by an order dated 31-10-1998, a One Man Enquiry committee was constituted to enquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer has already commenced the enquiry based on the complaint, charge-sheet and explanation. The Enquiry Officer examined the complaining officer and two other witnesses. It is further submitted that there cannot be any legal bar for both departmental proceedings as well as the criminal proceedings to go on simultaneously. The scope of the Enquiry officer for disciplinary action and the case in criminal Court for criminal action are different. The charges framed against the petitioner makes it apparent that the punishment sought to be imposed as per the Standing Orders of the Company are different from that of criminal action in the criminal case. It is further submitted that in the present case, since the petitioner has already submitted his defence before the enquiry Officer, the question of prejudice in the criminal case does not arise. The disciplinary proceedings are not meant to punish the petitioner but to keep the administrative machinery unsullied. If the petitioner is not found guilty of any misconduct, his honour would be vindicated by early conclusion of disciplinary enquiry. The disciplinary proceedings are not meant to punish the petitioner but to keep the administrative machinery unsullied. If the petitioner is not found guilty of any misconduct, his honour would be vindicated by early conclusion of disciplinary enquiry. ( 4 ) IN support of the contention of the petitioner, he relied upon a judgment of the supreme Court in the case of Kusheshwar dubey vs. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. In that case, simultaneous proceedings were taken but the delinquent filed a civil suit asking for injunction against the disciplinary action pending criminal trial and the Munsif Magistrate stayed further disciplinary proceedings till disposal of the criminal case and the appeal filed against the said order was dismissed and on the revision, the High Court allowed the revision setting aside the order of the Court below. The Supreme Court interfered with the order of the High Court and confirmed the orders of the lower Court on the ground that in the said case the disciplinary proceedings were grounded upon the same set of facts and the High Court was not right in interfering with the trial Court order which has been affirmed in the appeal. ( 5 ) IN the instant case, there was no such order of injunction by the Civil Court which was affirmed by the appellate Court. The supreme Court in the same judgment expressed its views that there could be no legal bar for simultaneous proceedings being taken. Their Lordships further held that it is neither possible not 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 facts of the present case are different from that of the facts of the aforesaid case. In this particualar case, though the departmental proceedings and the criminal action is initiated on the same incident, the criminal action is being taken up for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 341 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and the departmental action is being initiated for taking action as per the Standing Orders. However, in this case, the petitioner has already filed his explanation and revealed his defence, and therefore, the question of affecting his defence in criminal case does not arise. However, in this case, the petitioner has already filed his explanation and revealed his defence, and therefore, the question of affecting his defence in criminal case does not arise. ( 6 ) THE following charges are framed for the alleged misconduct against the petitioner:" (1) Riotous and disorderly behaviour or any act subversive of good behaviour or discipline within the premises of the Company (Cl. No. 27. 39 of CSO of the company ). (2) Indecent behaviour, threatening, use of impolite language against a superior of the Company (Cl. No. 27. 43 of CSO of the company ). (3) Interfering with free movement of the Company s Executive inside the premises (Cl. No. 27. . 56 of CSO of the Company ). " (4) Committing nuisance in the company premises (Cl. No. 27. 28 of cso of the Company ). "6. The aforesaid four charges are framed on the following allegations:"on 01-09-1998, while you were in g shift, you along with Shri g. Vidyadhar, Emp. No. 114040, technical (Mech)/sms went near Shift superintendent s room and asked shri K. Srinivas, Manager (O) as to whether he has given any instructions to employees of Production Cell not to allow you inside the room. After being told by Shri Srinivas that he has only given instruction to the employees of Production Cell not to encourage any meetings in the office room, you have again questioned shri Srinivas by telling him as to whether he is the boss of entire office and used abusive language against shri Srinivas. On being told by shri Srinivas not to use unparliamentary language, you have started pushing him towards STC-2 track pit using unparliamentary language and ultimately pushed him into the pit. Once again Shri Srinivas advised you not to be arrogant but you have not listened to him and continued abusing and manhandling. " ( 7 ) THE petitioner submitted his explanation on 10-10-1998 which reads as follows:"on 10-09-1998, I was in "g" shift and went to T. P. Bay (Mech.) to meet my friend to return a spanner which i have taken for scooter wheel changing. There I saw our collegue shri Vidyadhar is falling near the shift superintendent room. As I know that shri Vidyadhar is suffering from High blood Pressure and taking treatment. I thought that he might be falling by raise in his B. P. and ran to help him. There I saw our collegue shri Vidyadhar is falling near the shift superintendent room. As I know that shri Vidyadhar is suffering from High blood Pressure and taking treatment. I thought that he might be falling by raise in his B. P. and ran to help him. By the time I reached him, there shri Srinivas, Manager (O) was going from that spot. More than that I do not know anything. I never manhandled or abused Shri Srinivas, i have done nothing as contents in the charge-sheet. So I deny the charges framed against me which are baseless and not true. " ( 8 ) THE charge-sheet has been filed by the Police in Crime No. 27/98 under sections 353, 341 and 506 IPC before the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, viakhapatnam. Not only the three witnesses namely; A. Madhusudhan Babu, s. Appa Rao and B. Appa Rao cited in the departmental enquiry, are cited in criminal case but also same witnesses are cited in the criminal case. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. B. K. Meena held that when the delinquent has already disclosed defence in his statement, there is no question of his being compelled to disclose his defence in the disciplinary proceedings which would prejudice him in criminal case. It is relevant to quote Para 14 of the said judgment which is as follows:-"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. 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. "". . . . . . 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 at 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 and good Government demand that undesirable elements are thrown out and any charge of misdemeanour 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 a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. If he is not guilty of the charges, his honour should be indicated at the earliest possible moment and if he is guilty, he would be dealt with promptly according to law. It is not also in the interest of administration that persons accused of serious misdemeanour 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 emphasise 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. Stay of disciplinary proceedings cannot be, and should not be, a matter of course. All the relevant factors, for an against, should be weighed and a decision taken keeping in view the various principles laid down in the decisions referred to above. "in the said case also, the Supreme Court held that it is not desirable to stay the disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent therein and flowed to go on simultaneous proceedings. ( 9 ) THE same principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Depot Manager, A. P. S. R. T. C. vs. Mohd yousuf Miya and held that the High Court was not right in staying the departmental proceedings. ( 10 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the supreme Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. In that case, a criminal case was ended in acquittal, and therefore, on the peculiar facts and circumstances and as the criminal Court honourably acquitted the delinquent officer directed to reinstate him. In this case also, if the criminal case ends in total acquittal, it is always open for the petitioner to take advantage of the criminal case, but on that ground the petitioner is not entitled for stopping the departmental enquiry as the departmental proceedings cannot be kept pending invariably pending disposal of the criminal case. As already stated, the petitioner already filed his explanation and disclosed his defence and the question of revealing his defence affecting the criminal trial does not arise in this case. As held by the Supreme Court time and again, the departmental proceedings are different from that of the criminal case and both the proceedings are initiated to punish the guilty under different provisions separately. Criminal action is taken for taking action under Indian Penal Code to punish the accused whereas the departmental proceedings are taken under the relevant standing orders or other enactments to take action against the erring officials. I, therefore, do not see any merit in the writ petition in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as the Enquiry officer has already been appointed and almost the enquiry is over, it is not desirable to stay the departmental proceedings. ( 11 ) ACCORDINGLY, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.