Judgment :- The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of mandamus, to forbear the respondent from proceeding with the disciplinary proceedings pursuant to the charge memo dated 30.1.2001 issued by the respondent in his proceedings TNSTC/TS/T2/09/01 pending finalisation of criminal proceedings in Crime NO. 7 of 2001 on the file of Mudukulathur Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. 2. The following facts are sufficient for the disposal of the writ petition: The petitioner, while working as a Junior Assistant in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Mudukulathur Branch, was alleged to have misappropriated a sum of Rs.3,86,468.65. The said amount being the collection amount was kept in the locker. According to the petitioner, he left the office at 1.30 a.m on 16.1.2001 and returned to his seat on the next day morning. To his shock and surprise, he found that a sum of Rs.3,85,430/- was missing from the locker and immediately he brought the same to the notice of Mr.S.Padma Kumar, Junior Engineer, who was in-charge of Mudukulathur Branch. The Junior Engineer, who in turn, intimated the same to the Regional Manager. On 16.1.2002. The Regional Manager has preferred a complaint at Ramanathapuram Police Station and the same was registered as Crime No.7 of 2001 for an offence punishable under Section 380(N.P) I.P.C. The petitioner contends that in the complaint, nobody was mentioned as an accused. However, subsequently, the F.I.R. was amended partly at the instance of the higher officials and in connection with the said case, the petitioner was arrested by the police and subsequently he was enlarged on bail. 3. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 30.1.2001 and a charge memo was issued framing four charges alleging that the petitioner had misappropriated to the tune of Rs.3,85,430/-. The petitioner has submitted his explanation denying the charges and the respondent was not satisfied with the explanation and appointed an Enquiry Officer and directed the petitioner to appear before the Enquiry Officer. In the said context, the petitioner had approached this Court contending that the departmental proceedings and the criminal proceedings arise out of the same set of facts and therefore, the departmental proceedings have to be kept pending till the disposal of the criminal proceedings. 4. In the said context, the petitioner had approached this Court contending that the departmental proceedings and the criminal proceedings arise out of the same set of facts and therefore, the departmental proceedings have to be kept pending till the disposal of the criminal proceedings. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, after restating the facts mentioned in the affidavit, would contend that the charges framed before both the forum are one and the same and therefore, the delinquent would be greatly prejudiced if the criminal proceedings are not disposed of at the earliest and in the mean time, the departmental proceedings should be commenced. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in P.J.Sunderrajan and another-Vs-Unit Trust of India and another(1993(1) L.L.J.168) in support of his contention that the enquiry proceedings shall stand stayed if on the same set of charges the proceedings are pending before the Criminal Court. Reference is also made to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in M.Paul Antony -Vs-Bharat Gold Mines Ltd(AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1416),reliance also placed on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in The State of Tamil Nadu-vs-H.A.Munaff(2002)2 M.L.J.282). 5. The crux of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on identical set of facts, the departmental proceedings cannot be permitted to go on, considering the prejudice that will be caused to the delinquent in the criminal proceedings. Reference is made to the Judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court in Bojan -Vs-State by Inspector of Police Crime Branch(1989(1) Crimes 4) in support of his contention that it would be prejudicial to the interest of the delinquent, if the departmental proceedings should proceed earlier pending disposal of the criminal proceedings. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. It is true that one of the charges before the departmental proceedings relate to the alleged misappropriation of the sum of Rs.3,85,430/-. But there are other charges namely Charge No.2 which is to the effect that the petitioner had given wrong information to the management regarding the missing of the money and that the petitioner had committed misconduct in terms of Clause 16 (c) of the Standing Order. But there are other charges namely Charge No.2 which is to the effect that the petitioner had given wrong information to the management regarding the missing of the money and that the petitioner had committed misconduct in terms of Clause 16 (c) of the Standing Order. It is true that the major allegation before the Criminal Court as well as the departmental proceedings centers around the allegation that the petitioner had caused misappropriation of the same amount. But the preposition that the departmental proceedings should be for ever stayed during the pendency of the criminal proceedings is too wide and cannot be accepted. The entire issue was analysed in detail in the Judgment reported in AIR 1999 Supreme Court, 1416 (stated supra) and in fact the Supreme Court had registered its dissatisfaction regarding the manner in which the criminal proceedings are dealt with. The Supreme Court took note of its earlier decision in State of Rajasthan-vs-B.K.Meena (1996)6 S.C.C.417) and the following passage was quoted with approval by the Supreme Court. "Moreover","advisability", desirability, 'or' propriety,'as the case may be, has to be 'determined in each case taking in to consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case. The ground indicated in D.C.M. AIR 1960 SC 806 and Tata Oil Mills, AIR 1965 SC 155 is also not an invariable rule. It is only a factor which will go into the scales while judging the advisability or desirability of staying the disciplinary proceedings. One of the contending considerations is that the disciplinary enquiry cannot be - and should not be-delayed unduly. So far as criminal cases are concerned, it is well known that they drag on endlessly where high officials or persons are involved. They get bogged down on one or the other ground. They hardly ever reach a prompt conclusion. That is the reality in spite of repeated advice and admonitions from this Court and the High Courts. 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 demand that undesirable elements are thrown out and any charge of misdemeanour is inquired into promptly. The interests of administration and good government demand that these proceedings are concluded expeditiously. It must be remembered that interests of administration demand that undesirable elements are thrown out and any charge of misdemeanour is inquired 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 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 ie.,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 emphasis 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 course. All the relevant factors for and against should be weighed and a decision taken keeping in view of the various principles laid down in the decisions referred to above". After dealing with the said judgment in Paragraph 22, the Supreme Court has also made it clear that "if the criminal case does not proceed and 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" Therefore, there is no bar on the departmental proceedings being taken up for disposal, if there was any unduly delay for disposal of the criminal cases. The same view was reiterated by the Division Bench of this court in 2002(2)M.L.J 282(Stated supra). 8. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the broad contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the departmental proceedings should be for ever kept pending till the disposal of the criminal proceedings. The same view was reiterated by the Division Bench of this court in 2002(2)M.L.J 282(Stated supra). 8. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the broad contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the departmental proceedings should be for ever kept pending till the disposal of the criminal proceedings. As stated by the Supreme Court, the disposal of the criminal proceedings before the criminal court would depend on the many factors and the delay in the disposal of the criminal proceeding, cannot be an excuse for the delinquent to continue in service till the departmental proceedings are concluded. 9. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, I am inclined to pass the following orders: 1. The Judicial Magistrate, Muthukulathur, is directed to dispose of the proceedings in C.C.No.193 of 2001 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; 2. In the event of the criminal proceedings not being disposed of within the said period, the employee/respondent is entitled to re-start the departmental proceedings against the petitioner and come to his own conclusion on the basis of the enquiry. 10. This writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected WPMPs are closed.