Judgment Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J. 1. This application has been filed for quashing the resolution dated 5.2.2000 (Annexure-8) whereby a departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner. 2. While petitioner was posted as an Assistant Engineer, Vigilance Case No. 2 of 1996 was registered against him. According to the allegation, at the time of appointment, petitioner submitted his caste certificate showing him as belonging to Mahar caste of Village Nainpur, district Mandala of the State of Madhya Pfadesh. Mahar is a scheduled caste in "the said State. He was appointed in the Bihar State Electricity Board, hereinafter referred to as the Board, on a post reserved for the members of the scheduled caste. However, later on, it was found that the petitioner does not belong to Mahar caste but is Sudi by caste and belongs to Dalsinghsarai, a place in the State of Bihar. It was further alleged that the petitioner is the son of Late Baleshwar Prasad who was an Assistant Teacher in Railway Primary School, Nainpur and the petitioner was admitted in Class I of the said school and in the declaration form, caste of the petitioner was shown as Sudi. It was further alleged that the petitioner obtained forged certificate of belonging to Mahar caste and on that basis, secured appointment as an Assistant Engineer and later on, he was also promoted as Executive Engineer on the basis that he belongs to scheduled caste. Vigilance Department, after investigation, submitted the charge sheet dated 27.5.1998 against the petitioner. Further, by resolution dated 5.2.2000, the respondent Board had also initiated a departmental proceeding in respect of the same allegation. 3. Petitioner, preferred this writ application inter alia contending that departmental proceeding in relation to a charge which is the subject matter of a criminal case, is not permissible and praying to quash the departmental proceeding. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by order dated 6.9.2000 passed in this case, directed the respondent Board to stay the departmental proceedings till the disposal of the criminal case. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by order dated 6.9.2000 passed in this case, directed the respondent Board to stay the departmental proceedings till the disposal of the criminal case. While doing so, this Court observed as follows : "In the present case, I have already noticed above, both departmental proceedings and criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of grave in nature which involves complicated question of law and fact and also the evidence in both the proceedings is common without there being any variance. Thus, in my opinion, the principle decided in the aforesaid case of State of Bihar vs. Ram Lakhan Singh (supra) has got no application to the facts of the present case. However, this Court does not feel inclined to go into the validity of the initiation of the departmental proceeding itself. Moreover, the said question has not been pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner." 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, respondent Board preferred L.P.A. No. 1571 of 2000 (Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors. V/s. Ajay Kumar Prasad). A Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 21.2.2002, allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 6.9.2000 and remitted the matter back for a fresh decision. The Division Bench, while passing the said order, observed as follows: "In our view, there is no legal bar in considering the aforesaid document by the appellate court but taking into consideration the fact that the Board was not afforded an opportunity of bringing the said documents and other relevant documents on record before the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that it is a fit case where the order of the learned Single Judge is to be set aside for a fresh decision after giving an opportunity to the Board to file a detailed counter affidavit annexing the aforesaid document and other relevant documents and an opportunity of rebuttal to the writ petitioner-respondent." 5. This is how the writ application has come up before me for consideration. Mr. This is how the writ application has come up before me for consideration. Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that while setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench had taken note of the submission of the Board that the petitioner has disclosed his defence and as such, the question of any prejudice to him, does not arise. He points out that the Board placed before the Division Bench a communication of the petitioner in this regard which was objected to by the petitioner on the ground that the said document was not produced before the learned Single Judge. However, the Division Bench over ruled the said plea of the petitioner and remitted the matter back for consideration before the learned Single Judge. In that view of the matter, the learned counsel submits that this Court cannot go beyond the question of prejudice. 6. Mr. Mihir Kumar Jha appearing on behalf of the respondent Board, submits that the Division Bench had set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and the matter has been remanded for fresh decision and in that view of the matter, entire issue is before this Court and the decision cannot be confined only on the question relating to disclosure of defence. 7. Having appreciated the rival submissions, I find substance in the submission of Mr. Jha. It is relevant here to state that the order of the learned Single Judge has been set aside by the Division Bench and while doing so, one of the pleas raised by the Board was taken into consideration but that itself will not mean that when the Division Bench had remanded the case for decision afresh, I am only bound to consider the submission made before the Division Bench. No fetter having been placed by the Division Bench while setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge, I am of the opinion that the entire matter is before me and the decision cannot be confined to the point urged before the Division Bench. The matter would have been different had the Division Bench while setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge would have placed any such fetter specifically. 8. Mr. Singh contends that continuance of a departmental proceeding in respect of an allegation which is the subject matter of a criminal trial, is illegal. The matter would have been different had the Division Bench while setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge would have placed any such fetter specifically. 8. Mr. Singh contends that continuance of a departmental proceeding in respect of an allegation which is the subject matter of a criminal trial, is illegal. He emphasises that the allegation against the petitioner is of grave nature and involves complicated questions of law and fact and it is a fit case in which the departmental proceeding be stayed. In this connection, he draws my attention to the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge and quoted above wherein his Lordships has held that the allegation against the petitioner is grave in nature and involves determination of complicated questions of law and fact. Mr. Jha, however, appearing on behalf of the respondent Board submits that mere pendency of a criminal case in relation to a charge which is also a subject matter of departmental enquiry itself shall not justify staying the departmental proceeding. 9. It is common ground that the allegation in the criminal case and that of the departmental proceeding is one and the same and the allegation pertains to obtaining employment by claiming to be a resident of Madhya Pradesh belonging to scheduled caste and producing false caste certificate. It has been alleged that the petitioner belongs to Sudi caste from the State of Bihar. 10. Continuance of otherwise of the departmental proceeding and the criminal trial simultaneously for the same charge has vexed this court and that of the Supreme Court since long and now this question is not res integra and has come up for consideration before the Supreme Court in its various judgments which are being referred to hereinafter. 11. In the case of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. V/s. Kushal Bhan (A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 806) the allegation against the employee as that he had stolen the cycle of another employee of the Company. For that a departmental proceeding was initiated against him and he was also criminally prosecuted for the said charge. Ultimately in the departmental enquiry the employee was dismissed from service but in the meanwhile he was acquitted in the criminal case. For that a departmental proceeding was initiated against him and he was also criminally prosecuted for the said charge. Ultimately in the departmental enquiry the employee was dismissed from service but in the meanwhile he was acquitted in the criminal case. The employer filed an application before the Tribunal for the approval of the order of dismissal and the employee produced the order of acquittal and on consideration of the same the Tribunal refused to approve the order of dismissal. The matter ultimately travelled to the Supreme Court and an argument was advanced on behalf of the employee that principles of natural justice require that an employer should wait at least for the decision of the criminal court before taking disciplinary action. The Supreme Court answered the aforesaid question in the following words : "It is true that very often employers stay enquiries pending the decision of the criminal trial courts and that is fair; but he cannot say that principles of natural justice require that an employer must wait for the decision at least of the criminal trial court before taking action against an employee. In Shri Bimal Kanta Mukherjee V/s. Messrs. Newsmans Printing Works, 1956 Lab AC 188, this was the view taken by the Labour Appellate Tribunal. We may, however, add that if the case is of a grave nature or involves questions of fact of law, which are not simple, it would be advisable for the employer to await the decision of the trial court, so that the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced. The present, however, is a case of a very simple nature and so the employer cannot be blamed for the Court adopted by him. In the circumstances, there was in our opinion no failure of natural justice in this case and if the respondent did not choose to take part in the enquiry no fault can be found with that enquiry". (Underlining mine) 12. Another decision, in which this point came up for consideration before the Supreme Court is in the case of Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. V/s. The Workmen (A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 155). In this case the employees were charged that they waylaid another employee while he was returning home after his duty and assaulted him. (Underlining mine) 12. Another decision, in which this point came up for consideration before the Supreme Court is in the case of Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. V/s. The Workmen (A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 155). In this case the employees were charged that they waylaid another employee while he was returning home after his duty and assaulted him. A domestic enquiry was held and the employer decided to dismiss the delinquents and the order of dismissal was sent for approval to the Industrial Tribunal. In respect of the same charge a criminal case was also instituted. The Tribunal did not approve the order of dismissal and directed for reinstatement of the employees. The question regarding continuance of departmental proceeding came up for consideration before the Supreme Court and it laid down the law in the following words : "There is yet another point which remains to be considered. The Industrial Tribunal appears to have taken the view that since criminal proceedings had been started against Raghvan. the domestic enquiry should have been stayed pending the final disposal of the said criminal proceedings. As this Court has held in the Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. V/s. Kaushal Bhan, 1960-3 SCR 227 (A.I.R. 1960 SC 806) it is desirable that if the incident giving rise of a charge framed against a workman in a domestic enquiry is being tried in a criminal court, the employer should stay the domestic enquiry pending the final disposal of the criminal case. It would be particularly appropriate to adopt such a course where the charge against the workman is of a grave character, because in such a case, it would be unfair to compel the workman to disclose the defence which he may take before the criminal court. But to say that domestic enquiries may be stayed pending criminal trial is very different from any thing (sic) to say 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. In fairness, we ought to add that Mr. Menon did not seek to justify this extreme position. In fairness, we ought to add that Mr. Menon did not seek to justify this extreme position. Therefore, we must hold that the Industrial Tribunal was in error when it characterised the result of the domestic enquiry as mala fide partly because the enquiry was not stayed pending the criminal proceeding against Raghvan. We accordingly hold that the domestic enquiry in this case was properly held and fairly conducted and the conclusions of fact reached by the Enquiry Officer are based on evidence which he accepted as true. That being so, it was not open to the Industrial Tribunal to consider the same questions of fact and come to a contrary conclusion." (Underlining mine) 13. This question was also a subject matter of adjudication in the case of Kusheshwar Dubey V/s. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and others, (A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 2118). In the said case the allegation against the employee was that he physically assaulted a supervising officer and the said allegation was subject matter of disciplinary proceeding as also criminal prosecution. The employee filed petition for injunction for staying further proceeding in the departmental proceeding which was granted by the trial court. The appeal filed by the employer against the said order failed but the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction held that the trial as also the lower appellate court were wrong in granting injunction in favour of the opposite party. When the matter travelled to the Supreme Court it held that the criminal action and the disciplinary proceedings were grounded upon the same set of facts and the High Court was not right in interfering with the trial courts order of injunction, which was affirmed in appeal. However, while reversing the order of the High Court the Supreme Court observed as follows : The view expressed in the three cases of this Court seem to support the position that while there could be no legal bar for simultaneous proceedings being taken, yet, there may be cases where it would be appropriate to defer disciplinary proceedings awaiting disposal of the criminal case. In the latter cjass of cases it would be open to the delinquent-employee to seek such an order of stay or injunction from the Court. In the latter cjass of cases it would be open to the delinquent-employee to seek such an order of stay or injunction from the Court. Whether in the facts and circumstances of a particular case there should or should not be such simultanity of the proceedings would then receive judicial consideration and the Court will decide in the given circumstances of a particular case as to whether the disciplinary proceedings should be interdicted, pending criminal trial. As we have already stated that it is neither possible nor 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. For the disposal of the present case, we do not think it necessary to say any thing more. Particularly when we do not intend to lay down any general guideline." (underlining mine) 14. In the case of State of Rajasthan V/s. B.K Meena and others (A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 13), it came up for consideration before the Supreme Court as to the nature of cases and the consideration which should weigh, in stayng the departmental enquiry till the conclusion of the criminal trial. On consideration of its earlier decisions, the Supreme Court laid down the law in the following words : "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 situation it may not be desirable advisable or appropriate to proceed with the disciplinary enquiry when a criminal case is pending on identical charge. 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 staving 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. 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. The ground indicated in the D.C.M. (A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 806) and Tata Oil Mills (A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 155) is not also 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 consideration 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 holding high public offices 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 advise 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 disciplnary 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 interest of administration 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 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 guilty and dishonest. 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 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 proceeding. Stay of disciplinary proceedings cannot be and should not be. a matter of course. All the relevant factors, for and against should be weighed and a decision taken keeping in view the various principles laid down in the decisions referred to above." underlining mine) 15. In the case of Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation V/s. Mohd.Yousuf Miya (A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 2232), this question has been answered in the following words : "There would no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental enquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the charge in the criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and laws. Offence generally implies infringement of public, as distinguished from mere private rights punishable under criminal law. When trial for criminal offence is conducted it should be in accordance with proof of the offence as per the evidence defined under the provisions of the Evidence Act. Converse is the case of departmental proceedings relates to conduct or breach of duty of the delinquent officer to punish him for his misconduct defined under the relevant statutory rules of law. That the strict standard of proof or applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded s a settled legal position. The enquiry in the departmental proceedings relates to the conduct of the delinquent officer and proof in that behalf is not as high as in an offence in criminal charge. It is seen that invariably the departmental enquiry has to be conducted expeditiously so as to effectuate efficiency in public administration and the criminal trial will take its own course. The nature of evidence in criminal trial is entirely different from the departmental proceedings. In the former, prosecution is to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the touchstone of human conduct. The nature of evidence in criminal trial is entirely different from the departmental proceedings. In the former, prosecution is to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the touchstone of human conduct. The standard of proof in the departmental proceedings is not the same as of the criminal trial. The evidence also is different from the standard point of Evidence Act. The evidence required in the departmental enquiry is not regulated by Evidence Act. Under these circumstances, what is required to be seen is whether the departmental enquiry would seriously prejudice the delinquent in his defence at the trial in a criminal case. It is always a question of fact to be considered in each case depending on its own facts and circumstances. In this case, we have seen that the charge is failure to anticipate the accident and prevention thereof. It has nothing to do with the culpability of offence under Sections 304A and 338 I.P.C. Under these circumstances the High Court was not right in staying the proceedings." (Underlining mine) 16. A division Bench of this Court had also the occasion to consider this question in the case of State of Bihar & ors. V/s. Kanhai Rajak, 2000 (2) P.L.J.R 886 and in the said case, it has been held as follows : "12. Thus, it is clear that even if the departmental proceeding and the criminal case are based on identical facts and it is desirable to stay the departmental proceeding but since the criminal case is likely to take a longer time, the departmental proceeding either may not be stayed; or, if already stayed, then it should be resumed and brought to its conclusion. 13. In this case, as the materials show, the Vigilance case was registered in 1992, but up-till now there is no progress in the trial and it is well-known that in this State the disposal of the case takes longer time. In that view of the matter, the disciplinary authority was justified in not staying the departmental proceeding on the ground of pendencey of the criminal case and as such the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority cannot be faulted on the said ground. Learned counsel for the State, in our view, rightly argued that the order of dismissal should not have been stayed by the learned single judge on the ground of pendency of the criminal case. Learned counsel for the State, in our view, rightly argued that the order of dismissal should not have been stayed by the learned single judge on the ground of pendency of the criminal case. Accordingly, that direction of the learned Single Judge is set aside." 17. I had the occasion to consider this question in the case of Sitaram Choudhary V/s. State of Bihar & ors, 2003 (1) P.L.J.R. 113 and in the said case I held as follows : 13. From the decision of the Supreme Court, referred to above, the following principles are deducible: (i) There is no legal bar for both proceedings i.e. criminal and departmental proceeding to go on simultaneously: (ii) The principles of natural justice do not require that an employer must wait for the decision of a criminal case before taking action against an employee. (iii) The defence of the employer shall be prejudiced, is not a valid ground for staying the disciplinary proceeding unless and until the charge is not only for grave nature but the case also involve complicated questions of law and fact; (iv) Departmental proceeding shall not be stayed in a case in which the criminal trial is likely to be unduly delayed; (v) Stay of departmental proceeding should not be a matter of course; (vi) It is not in the interest of administration that accused of serious misdemeanour should be continued in office indefinitely awaiting the-result of criminal proceeding. It only serves the interest of guilty and dishonest; (vii) The result of the departmental proceeding during the pendency of criminal case cannot be said to be malafide; (viii) If the 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." 18. It is emphasised by the petitioner that the charge is not only of grave nature but the same involves complicated questions of law and hence, satisfies the test for staying the departmental proceeding. It has been pointed out that while staying the departmental proceeding by an earlier order which has been set aside by the Division Bench, this Court has held so. It has been pointed out that while staying the departmental proceeding by an earlier order which has been set aside by the Division Bench, this Court has held so. To be candid which question shall be complicated queston of law and fact solely does not depend on the allegation or the charge but the competence of the person who is required to determine the same. The complexity of the question, in my opinion, shall not depend upon the plea of delinquent employee but the allegation of misconduct. For a Mathematician, arithmetic may not involve any complicated question but the same may be a complicated question for Historian. Here, the allegation against the petitioner is that although he is a resident of State of Bihar but has obtained certificate belonging to Mahar caste from the State of Madhya Pradesh. I am of the considered opinion that the allegation against the petitioner certainly is of grave nature but it does not involve complicated questions of law and fact. Accordingly, the departmental proceeding is not fit to be stayed on the ground urged by the petitioner. 19. There is yet another impediment in the way of the petitioner. As has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of B.K. Meena (supra) as also by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kanhai Rajak (supra) and by me sitting singly in the case of Sitaram Choudhary (supra), if the criminal case is unduly delayed, that may itself be a good ground for going ahead with the disciplinary enquiry even where the disciplinary proceeding is held over at an earlier stage. As stated earlier, the criminal case against the petitioner was registered as back as on 18.1.1996 and the charge sheet was submitted on 22.5.1998. But up till now, there is no progress in the trial. It is well known that the criminal case drags on endlessly, they hardly reach a prompt conclusion and bogged down on one or other ground. One feels sorry to say that criminal trial in this State is unduly delayed and vigilance cases reach the final stage in the trial court in a decade in few cases but in many, it is more than that. One feels sorry to say that criminal trial in this State is unduly delayed and vigilance cases reach the final stage in the trial court in a decade in few cases but in many, it is more than that. I am of the considered opinion that in the facts of the present case, it would be travesty of justice to stay the departmental proceeding on the ground of pendency of the criminal cases. It has to be borne in mind that interest of administration and good governance demand that these proceedings are concluded expeditiously, charge of misdemeanor is enquired promptly and undesirable elements are shown the gate swiftly. The disciplinary proceedings are not meant only to punish the guilty but to keep the administrative machinery unpolluted. 20. In the result, I do not find any merit in this writ application and it is dismissed accordingly.