JUDGMENT S. K. Singh, J.—By means of this writ petition, prayer has been made by the petitioner, commanding the respondents not to proceed further with the departmental proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to the letters dated 6.7.2001 and 10.7.2001 issued by the Enquiry Officer/Senior Manager till the conclusion of the Criminal Case No. 47 of 2001, State v. Ram Nazar Dubey pending in the Court of Special Judge (P. C. Act), Lucknow. A further prayer is that respondents be commanded not to compel the petitioner to participate in the departmental proceedings on the basis of the charge-sheet dated 5.7.2001 till the conclusion of the criminal case. By an amendment application petitioner has also challenged the decision of the Managing Director/Respondent No. 1 dated 1.2.2002 rejecting petitioner’s claim for staying departmental proceedings. 2. As pleadings between the parties are complete, as prayed from both sides, matter is being heard and finally decided. 3. The question which has been raised and is involved in this petition relates to the situation and circumstances for staying the departmental disciplinary proceedings during the pendency of the criminal trial. 4. Petitioner having been appointed on the post of Clerk-cum-Typist on 26.2.1979 in the office of the U. P. State Handloom Corporation Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the Corporation, on being promoted from time to time has been working on the post of Office Superintendent from 11.4.1998, as has been stated in the writ petition. It is said that petitioner was working as Incharge of the U. P. Handloom Sales Depot, Malleshwaran, Bangalore (Karnataka) had gone on casual leave from 6.11.1993 to 8.11.1993 and thereafter on medical leave from 9.11.1993 to 25.1.1994. After availing the casual leave/medical leave when petitioner came back to join his services on 26.1.1994, he came to know that he has been transferred to Siliguri on 31.12.1993. It is stated that on 17.1.1994 a fire had taken place in the show room of the Sales Depot, Malleshwaran and due to the said fire lot of damage took place for which an F.I.R. had been lodged against several persons. Besides the aforesaid F.I.R. the matter is said to have been investigated by the U. P. Vigilance Cell who has submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner and one U. S. Tewari vide charge-sheet No. 2/2001 dated 5.7.2001 upon which a criminal trial is going on. Besides the aforesaid F.I.R. the matter is said to have been investigated by the U. P. Vigilance Cell who has submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner and one U. S. Tewari vide charge-sheet No. 2/2001 dated 5.7.2001 upon which a criminal trial is going on. It is stated that as soon as the Vigilance Cell, Kanpur, has submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner in the Court of Special Judge (P. C. Act) on 5.7.2001 Senior Manager/Enquiry Officer of the Corporation sent a letter to the petitioner stating that now departmental enquiry against the petitioner is to be proceeded and hence petitioner was directed to appear before the Enquiry Officer and to participate in the enquiry proceedings. It is the direction of the departmental authority to participate in the departmental proceedings, which has made the petitioner aggrieved to come up to this Court. At the time when the writ petition was entertained, this Court directed Respondent No. 1 to consider the petitioner’s application about the stay of the departmental enquiry and to pass speaking order, upon which order has been passed on 1.2.2002 rejecting the petitioner’s prayer, which too has been challenged by way of amendment application. 5. Heard Sri O. P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shiv Nath Singh, learned advocate who appeared on behalf of the respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the facts of the present case, it is clear that both proceedings of the criminal trial and the departmental proceedings are based on the same set of facts and on the same charges and, therefore, it is for the departmental authority to stay their hands in the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal trial. Learned counsel has taken the Court to the charges as are against the petitioner in the departmental charge-sheet and the charge-sheet as has been submitted after the investigation by the Vigilance cell to submit that petitioner is being proceeded on the same charges in both set of proceedings and thus submission is that the prayer as made in this petition for a direction to the respondents for staying their hands in the departmental proceedings is to be granted. Learned counsel in support of his submission for staying the departmental proceedings has taken help of the decisions as has been given in case of Kusheshwar Dubey v. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and others, 1988 (4) SCC 319 , P. J. Sundarrajan and another v. Unit Trust of India and another, 1993 (66) FLR 1938 ; State of Rajasthan v. B. K. Meena and others, AIR 1997 SC 13 and Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another, 1999 (2) AWC 1579. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents in response to the aforesaid arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner argued before the Court that it is in each and every case normally the charges will have to be the same as the incident and the role of any of the employee in respect to any mis-conduct will be one and the same and therefore, in the event contention of the petitioner is accepted then in no case the departmental proceeding can proceed until conclusion of the criminal trial which in the event if accepted, will create a very peculiar situation. It is further submitted that if the contention about the stay of the departmental proceedings is accepted then at the fag end of career of an employee/Government servant he may take chance of causing huge financial loss to the employer and manage to get a criminal case also lodged and then drag the same for years together and be saved in the departmental side permitting attaining the age of superannuation and then pray for all the retiral benefits leaving the employer to run here and there to catch hold of the employee in the event criminal trial ends against him. Learned counsel submits that decisions of the cases as has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner has not laid down that in each and every case departmental proceedings, pending criminal trial is to be stayed. Learned counsel besides taking help to all those cases even refereed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in his support has added the decision of this Court as has been delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Pandey v. State of U. P. and others, 2000 (1) AWC 722 : 2000 (2) LBESR 90 . 8. 8. There appears to be neither any dispute nor any doubt that the point in issue, in view of decision by the Apex Court from time to time requires no elaboration and the law on the point has been well discussed in the Division Bench judgment of our own Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Pandey (supra). As in the judgment of Division Bench of our Court, the judgment of the Apex Court right from the year 1960 onwards have been referred, giving of full detail will be just a repetition. On closer examination of all the decisions as referred from the side of the learned counsel for the petitioner, leads to only one conclusion that neither there is any hard and fast rule for giving direction that in all the cases of departmental proceedings, they are to be stayed till the conclusion of the criminal trial nor it can be thought of. In the event this kind of situation is permitted as a matter of right, then it will be very easy for any charge-sheeted employee to even get himself managed about lodging of F.I.R. and then stretch its continuance for desired time and move in the department freely having a licence to commit same act again and again. So far the F.I.R. and the criminal trial is concerned, that is bound to have their basis and foundation on the same set of facts as are in the departmental proceedings, for the simple reason that offence is one and the allegation is one and it is to be seen that the charge-sheeted employee is the guilty of committing that misconduct or not. 9. In view of the aforesaid when this is accepted that as matter of right in each and every case, a direction for staying the departmental proceedings, if cannot be given, then the Court will have to carve out as a probable guidelines for the departmental authorities to keep in mind in this regard. 9. In view of the aforesaid when this is accepted that as matter of right in each and every case, a direction for staying the departmental proceedings, if cannot be given, then the Court will have to carve out as a probable guidelines for the departmental authorities to keep in mind in this regard. The purpose of departmental proceedings, which admittedly can be concluded within a very reasonable short span of time, happens to be to find out the truth in relation to the charges against the charged employee and in the event he is found to be guilty, to award even minor punishment which may caution him for his future career and if there are serious charges to screen him out so that there may be a clean atmosphere of working in the department. Holding of the departmental proceedings and ousting the undesirable element is also quite essential for a faith of the people in the system, which is the need of the day. The Court can take judicial notice of deep rooted irregularities by the employees, being involved in financial matter, causing serious trouble and harassment to public at large and causing serious losses to the concerned institution which ultimately comes heavily on the general public itself. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the criminal trial takes quite long time, therefore, if an employee is charged for causing financial loss which has concern with the general public itself, he cannot be permitted not to be proceeded till the conclusion of the trial. It is only in the matter where the misconduct of the employee has no effect on the functioning of the department and it is his misconduct and offence against any individual or it is of such a kind to which the departmental functioning and its finances are not concerned, it is only in those cases if the employee on those charges is facing criminal trial, while being under suspension or not, departmental proceedings for his misconduct can be permitted to wait for the conclusion of the criminal trial. 10. 10. There is another reason for taking the aforesaid view that even though both proceedings may be on the same set of facts and on the same evidence but at the same time, it is to be kept in mind that whether any complicated question of law and fact is also involved and further more the Apex Court has also clearly ruled that its advisability, desirability or propriety, as the case may be is to be determined in each case. The Apex Court has clearly ruled that the consideration in such matter is that what is desirable, advisable or appropriate. In the aforesaid background, some of the observations which can be carved out through the decision of the Apex Court by way of reference is hereby quoted : “But to say that domestic enquiry may be stayed pending criminal trial is very different from saying that if an employer proceeds with the domestic enquiry in spite 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.” ( AIR 1965 SC 155 ). “There could be no legal bar for simultaneous proceedings being taken yet there may be cases where it would be appropriate to defer disciplinary proceeding awaiting disposal of the criminal case” .............. “It is neither possible nor advisable to evolve a hard and fast, strait-jacket formula valid for all cases and of general application without regard to the particularisties of the individual situation.” ( AIR 1988 SC 2118 ). “It is evident from the above decision 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 a certain situation, 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 matter to be determined having regard to the facts and circumstances of a given case and no hard and fast rule can be enunciated in that behalf. The only ground suggested in the above decisions as constituted a valid ground for staying the disciplinary proceedings is that the defence of the employee in the criminal case not to be prejudiced. The only ground suggested in the above decisions as constituted a valid ground for staying the disciplinary proceedings is that the defence of the employee in the criminal case not to be prejudiced. This ground has however, been hedged in by providing further this may have be done in cases of grave nature involving questions of fact and law. In our respectful opinion, it means that not only charges must be grave but that the case may have involved complicated question of law and fact. Moreover ‘advisability’, ‘desirability’ or ‘propriety’ as the case may be has to be determined in each case taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case.” “It must be remembered that interests of administration demand undesirable elements are thrown out and any charge of mis-demeanour is enquired into promptly.” .............. “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 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 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 proceeding. Stay of disciplinary proceedings cannot be and should not be, a matter of course.” (AIR 1977 SC 13). “There is no bar to proceed simultaneously with the departmental enquiry and trial of criminal case unless the charge in the criminal case is of a grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law.” ( AIR 1997 SC 2232 ). 11. Stay of disciplinary proceedings cannot be and should not be, a matter of course.” (AIR 1977 SC 13). “There is no bar to proceed simultaneously with the departmental enquiry and trial of criminal case unless the charge in the criminal case is of a grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law.” ( AIR 1997 SC 2232 ). 11. In the recent decision given by the Apex Court in case of M. Paul Anthony (supra) also, it has been emphasised that question of desirability of staying the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case is to be considered although the departmental proceedings and proceeding in criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. 12. In view of the aforesaid, it is to be examined by the authorities that whether there is any complicated question of law and fact is involved while dealing with the charges and whether the misconduct of the charged employee affects the administration, financial burden which has an implied effect on the public or whether the misconduct of the employee relates to damage or any effect to others having no prejudice to the department. Although any kind of misconduct by any Government employee for which criminal case is lodged in the event, he is detained under judicial custody or otherwise, the departmental proceeding can proceed but at the same time, as the kind of misconduct, if it do not have a direct relation with the administration, working and functioning with the work of the department and have no prejudice to the financial affairs, departmental authorities will take note of the fact and consider that it may be desirable, appropriate and advisable to wait for conclusion of the criminal trial. 13. So far case in hand is concerned, the charge against the petitioner is that while he was posted in Malleshwaran show room of the Corporation, has committed serious financial irregularities. 13. So far case in hand is concerned, the charge against the petitioner is that while he was posted in Malleshwaran show room of the Corporation, has committed serious financial irregularities. It has been stated by the respondents that during his tenure without any permission of the competent authority of the Headquarter, petitioner engaged Sarvesh Kumar, Harendra Mani Tripathi and Shiv Dayal Tripathi who were close relatives of the petitioner and with an intention of keeping himself away of the charges of apprehended liability, he proceeded on leave for several months without giving any application and taking leave from Regional Sales Manager and by just sending application directly to the Head Office. Sending of the application for leave directly to the Head Office is not permissible, which clearly indicates the malice on the part of the petitioner. There is further charge that it is with the intention that mischief of the petitioner may not be traced, he got a fire in the office/Depot by which also further huge loss running into about 78 lacks took place. In view of the aforesaid charges, it is very much clear that it cannot be said that any complicated question of law and fact is involved warranting desirability of staying the departmental proceedings. Charge of causing financial loss and that too, to such a huge tune by which as stated in the order dated 1.2.2002 the entire financial structure of the Corporation has disbalanced, requires the speedy completion of the enquiry in the departmental side, which will also be in the interest of the petitioner as he is continuing under suspension. In the event, charges are found to be not proved in the departmental side, he will be exonerated with full honour besides getting all the benefits in every respect and in the event, it is found to be proved against him, on being awarded some punishment, to approach the higher forum for getting the relief. In the meantime take a case that some final decision in the criminal trial also comes, then it will be further to the advantage of the petitioner to rely in the departmental side, at any stage where his matter may be pending or even thereafter. 14. On the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the decision as has been taken by the respondents of not staying the departmental proceedings, as prayed by the petitioner is unjustified. 14. On the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the decision as has been taken by the respondents of not staying the departmental proceedings, as prayed by the petitioner is unjustified. The prayer for staying the departmental proceedings is not to be allowed as a matter of course and, therefore, if on the fact and circumstances and law in this respect as has been discussed above, if the respondents have taken the view not to stay departmental proceedings, it cannot be said to be arbitrary or perverse exercise on their part warranting any interference by this Court exercising the equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 15. In view of foregoing decision, it cannot be said that decision taken by respondent in its order dated 1.2.2002 rejecting petitioner’s application for staying departmental proceeding is illegal and arbitrary in any manner. On the facts, it appears not to be a fit case for interference in writ petition. 16. This writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed.