( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against a judgment dated 24-4-2000 passed by the State Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 2280 of 2001 whereby and whereunder the original application filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed. In the said application the petitioner prayed. "to set aside/quash the order passed by the respondent, Deputy Commissioner of prohibition and Excise, Guntur in Cr. No. 414/ 98/a5, dated 27-3-2001 and direct the respondent to defer the departmental proceedings till the disposal of criminal proceedings pending in CC No. 15/99 before Hon ble Special Judge for ACB Cases, at Nellore. " ( 2 ) IT is not in dispute that the following charge-memo was issued against the writ petitioner. "that Sri Kurra Vara Prasad Rao son of Venkateswarlu, while working as Sub-Inspector of Prohibition and Excise, Chirala, Prakasam District during the period between 26-12-1995 and 28-4-1998 has committed misconduct and was found in possession of an unaccounted and unexplained cash of Rs. 1,24,450/- (Rs. 54,450/- + Rs. 70,000/-) which was seized during search on 28-4-1998 from his office and from his residential premises at Chirala respectively, for which he could not satisfactorily account for. Thus Sri Kurra Vara Prasad Rao by his above mentioned acts has exhibited lack of integrity and devotion to his duty and conduct unbecoming of member of service and thereby contravened Rule 23 (1) and (2) of APCS Conduct Rules, 1964. " ( 3 ) A criminal case based on the same allegation was instituted against him being CC No. 15 of 1999 under Sections 7, 12, 13 (2) read with 13 (l) (d) of P. C. Act, 1988 (Central Act 49 of 1988) read with Section 34 IPC in Cr. No. 8/acb-NPK/98 of ACB Nellore Range. ( 4 ) IT appears, after the petitioner was asked to show-cause, he inter alia prayed. "under these circumstances, I humbly pray that my respected and honourable Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise may be pleased to drop all further departmental proceedings against me/or keep the same in abeyance of the same, pending disposal of CC No. 15/99 before the Honourable Court of the Special Judge for ACB cases at nellore. Or else I will suffer grave and irreparable loss. I also understand that there are also several High Court Rulings to the same effect. Or else I will suffer grave and irreparable loss. I also understand that there are also several High Court Rulings to the same effect. I assure you Sir, that after the disposal of the above criminal case, if the department still insists, for any departmental enquiry, I will certainly submit my written statement of defence in detail, within any reasonable time that may be given to me thereafter. " ( 5 ) HOWEVER, when considering the aforementioned aspect of the matter, the Deputy Commissioner by reason of an order dated 27-3-2001 directed: "with reference to his explanation vide reference supra, K. V. Prasada Rao, Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector under suspension is informed that, after examining the case in detail it is decided to hold departmental enquiry against him. Accordingly charges were framed against him in consultation with ACB. Therefore he is directed to submit his statement of defence to the charge memo issued vide Rc. No. 414/ 98/a5, dated 16-6-2000 within 15 days from the date of receipt of this memo failing which action will be taken as per the material available on record. " ( 6 ) A bare perusal of the said order would clearly go to show that the question, as to whether the departmental proceedings should be stayed pending the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner having regard to the gravity of the offence and other relevant factors in the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. The Workmen, AIR 1965 SC 155 , Kusheshwar Dubey v. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and others, AIR 1988 SC 2118 , as also a decision of this Court in Shaik Ahmed v. Labour Court, Guntur and another, 2001 (1) ALD 180 , has not been taken into consideration. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the Tribunal as also the order impugned before the learned Tribunal cannot be sustained. They are set aside accordingly and the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, the first respondent is hereby directed to consider the matter afresh and pass an appropriate order as expeditiously as possible and not later than three weeks from the date of communication of this order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.