S. N. SRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER who, at the relevant time was in the service of the respondent Bank in its rajpura Branch, Budaun and was fastened with the charge of defalcating public money has preferred this petition for the relief of quashing the charge-sheet, enquiry report and show cause notice, annexed as Annexures-2, annexure-5 and Annexure-5a to the writ petition. ( 2 ) SRI S. K. Verma, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri Siddharth Verma appearing for the petitioner, has urged that the allegations made in the First Information report and evidence of the criminal case constitute the basis for Departmental proceedings also and canvassed that pending criminal proceeding, the authorities should stay their hands off the departmental proceedings. In the alternative, it was urged that if the Court is not pleased to stay departmental proceedings, the petitioner be granted the indulgence of filing a detailed reply to the show cause notice and also be afforded opportunity of personal hearing before the final orders are passed in departmental proceedings for the reason that the detailed reply could not be filed by the petitioner so far and he only agitated the question about maintainability of Departmental proceeding in the form of short reply filed by him. ( 3 ) SRI K. L. Grover, learned senior advocate appearing for opposite parties contended that petitioner has, with a purpose to a design, not filed charge-sheet of the criminal case. He further contended that the petitioner was suspended from service on 28/10/1994 and ever since then subsistence allowance is being paid to him and that since criminal proceedings were protracting, hence. Departmental proceedings were rightly commenced. It is further submitted that petitioner was given full opportunity to participate in the enquiry stating that a show cause notice as well as a copy of the enquiry report was given to the petitioner in accordance with Rules. It is further submitted that the petitioner also filed reply and final orders will be passed in accordance with Rules after reckoning with the same. There is no justification for staying the Departmental proceeding. ( 4 ) I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties across the Bar. It is further submitted that the petitioner also filed reply and final orders will be passed in accordance with Rules after reckoning with the same. There is no justification for staying the Departmental proceeding. ( 4 ) I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties across the Bar. ( 5 ) FOLLOWING facts having bearing on the controversy involved in this case are necessary and they are as under: a First Information Report was lodged on 29/10/1994 alleging embezzlement to the tune of Rs. 2,54. 000/- by the petitioner in case crime No. 254 of 1994 under sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 477-A I. P. C. inp. S. Rajpur, District Budaun. It followed suspension of the petitioner vide order dated 28/10/1994. He did not draw attention to any material brought on record indicative of the stage of the proceedings in the criminal Court. He has also neither filed charge-sheet or charges framed by criminal court nor the order-sheet of the criminal case, it is, however, not disputed by any of the parties that the criminal Court proceedings are still lingering. The department appears to have decided to commence departmental proceedings in order to take it to some logical conclusion ostensibly owing to inordinate delay in the criminal case. The department served charge-sheet on 3/06/1998 and the petitioner was given opportunity to participate in the enquiry and after completing the enquiry a show cause notice was issued by the letter April 30, 2002. Petitioner has filed reply to the show cause notice which is Annexure-6 to the writ petition. ( 6 ) FROM the perusal of the Departmental charge-sheet it transpires that the allegation against the petitioner is of misappropriating a sum of Rs. 6,20,290/ -. From the charge-sheet it is further clear that there are other serious charges of negligence and remissness also apart from misappropriation. June 18, 2002 was the date fixed for personal hearing on the application of the petitioner but petitioner did not avail himself of the opportunity and instead, rushed to this Court by filling writ petition on may 29, 2002. ( 7 ) ON the basis of admitted fact the criminal proceedings are brooding over the head for the last about eight years. ( 7 ) ON the basis of admitted fact the criminal proceedings are brooding over the head for the last about eight years. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am persuaded to the view that Department has rightly decided to proceed with the Departmental proceeding and rightly served charge-sheet stemming from protraction of the criminal proceeding in Court. It brooks no dispute that Departmental proceeding has to take place in accordance with rules. ( 8 ) INDISPUTABLY, owing to huge delay in criminal case the action of the Departmental authorities to hold Departmental proceedings was in accordance with law. This view of mine receives reinforcement from a decision of the supreme Court reported in Capt. M. Paul anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. AIR 1999 sc 1416 : 1999 (3) SCC 679 : 1999-1-LJ-1094. The Supreme Court has laid down law that"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, administration may get rid of him at the earliest. " ( 9 ) THE argument of Sri Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on the point of staying departmental proceedings till disposal of criminal proceedings has no force and does not commend me for acceptance. ( 10 ) THE Departmental authorities have rightly commenced Departmental proceeding. There is no hard and fast rule or strait-jacket formula for staying the Departmental proceeding and it replicates the colour according to the peculiarities of facts of a particular case. In the present case the ! Department rightly decided to proceed with the departmental proceeding in the peculiarities of facts, long delay and protraction of criminal case and the nature of charges. ( 11 ) SRI Verma commiseratingly submitted that the petitioner should be permitted to file a detailed reply and also be given personal hearing again. ( 12 ) IN the conspectus of the submissions made across the Bar by the learned counsel for the parties, I am persuaded to observe that petitioner be accorded one last opportunity to file a detailed reply to the show cause notice. ( 12 ) IN the conspectus of the submissions made across the Bar by the learned counsel for the parties, I am persuaded to observe that petitioner be accorded one last opportunity to file a detailed reply to the show cause notice. In consequence, it is directed that the opposite parties shall permit the petitioner to file a detailed reply within a period of six weeks from today and thereafter opposite parties will hear the petitioner on December 20 and 21, 2002 personally. The Department will pass final orders by January 15, 2003. ( 13 ) IT need hardly be said that in case the petitioner does not co-operate in the smooth conduct of Departmental proceeding and he seems or is seen breaching any of the above directions in that event Departmental authorities will be at liberty to pass final orders on the basis of whatever materials are available on record. ( 14 ) THE writ petition is finally disposed of with the above direction. The parties shall bear their respective costs. ( 15 ) SRI K. L. Grover, learned senior advocate appearing for opposite parties undertakes to apprise the opposite parties of the contents of the order. Petitioner shall also be supplied certified copy of this order within two weeks on payment of usual charges. .