JUDGMENT T. Vaiphei, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the impugned departmental proceeding drawn up against him by the respondent No. 1 vide Memo. No. F.19(550)/Viz/For-2002/4609-13 dated 27.5.2002 and the impugned Order dated 5.4.2003, passed by the respondent No. 2. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner is a Lower Division Clerk under the Department of Forest, Government of Tripura, who entered service as Lower Division Clerk on 4.1.1999. The petitioner is presently posted as Lower Division Clerk in the Office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Working Plan, Division No. II, Agartala. The writ petition further states that while the petitioner was posted as L.D.C. in the Office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Kanchanpur Forest Division, the Officer-in-Charge of Kanchanpur Police Station arrested him and another Shri Jarendra Reang, a contingent driver of the Forest Department for the offence under Sections 290/510 I.PC. vide Police Report No. 104 dated 9.9.2001. Subsequently, the case was tried by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dharmanagar. North Tripura under the aforesaid sections of I.P.C. In course of the trial, the prosecution had examined as many as five witnesses and vide Judgment dated 7.2.2002, passed in NGR 121/2001, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate acquitted the petitioner and the other accused from the charges on the ground that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charges levelled against them. It is the case of the petitioner that he had been placed under suspension on 12.9.2001 immediately after the institution of the aforesaid case but he was re-instated to his post with effect from 1.6.2002, after his acquittal from the aforesaid Criminal case. However, instead of giving all service benefits to him, during the period of suspension, the respondent No. 1 illegally took up the said disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 on two Articles of Charge which are based on allegations identical to the charges made in the said criminal case. The petitioner states that after he received the Memo, of Charges, he duly submitted written statement of defence denying the charges and also praying for dropping the disciplinary proceeding in view of his acquittal from the Criminal case on identical charges. The petitioner states that after he received the Memo, of Charges, he duly submitted written statement of defence denying the charges and also praying for dropping the disciplinary proceeding in view of his acquittal from the Criminal case on identical charges. The writ petition further states that on 5.4.2003, the petitioner appeared before the respondent No. 2 and submitted an application praying for dropping the said disciplinary proceeding on the ground already stated above, but the respondent No. 2 vide Order dated 5.4.2003 illegally held that there was no bar for continuance of the disciplinary proceeding notwithstanding his acquittal from the criminal case and as such the disciplinary proceeding would not be closed at this stage. Accordingly, the respondent No. 2 rejected his application for dropping the disciplinary proceeding against him. The petitioner submits that the disciplinary proceeding was absolutely uncalled for and that the same was launched against him with a mala fide motive and to harass him and, that too, after eight months of his acquittal from the criminal case. The allegation of the petitioner is that the respondents, having failed to succeed in the criminal case against him, have drawn up the disciplinary proceeding just for the sake of causing harassment to him unnecessarily. 3. The respondents contested the writ petition by filing a counter-affidavit wherein it is stated that the writ petition is not maintainable. The respondents in their counter-affidavit submits that both the disciplinary proceeding and the criminal proceeding operate in distinct and different areas and in a disciplinary proceeding, the charge relating to misconduct is being investigated, the factors operating in the mind of the disciplinary authority being enforcement of discipline or to investigate the level of integrity of the delinquent, for which the standard of the proof is also different. The counter affidavit also states that if the misconduct of the petitioner is not enquired into through a regular disciplinary proceeding, it will send wrong signal to the other employees thereby resulting in indiscipline among the staff of the department. The respondents flatly deny that with a mala fide motive and to harass the petitioner, the impugned disciplinary proceeding had been drawn up. The respondents flatly deny that with a mala fide motive and to harass the petitioner, the impugned disciplinary proceeding had been drawn up. As for the delay in drawing up the impugned disciplinary proceeding, the respondents state that the delay was unavoidable inasmuch as the petitioner was not readily available in Kanchanpur as his headquarter was in the office of the D.F.O., Working Plan, Division No. I, Agartala. The respondents, therefore, submit that the writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard Mr. A. K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel being assisted by Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T. D. Majumder, learned counsel for the State respondents. 5. On a consideration of the pleadings of both the parties, I am of the view that the point for determination of this case is whether on the acquittal of the petitioner from the criminal offence, the disciplinary proceeding can continue ? The law in this respect is no longer res Integra. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony, Appellant v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Anr., Respondents ( ) after reviewing all the previous case laws in this subject, laid down as follows :- "(i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. (ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. (iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge sheet. (iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. (iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. (v) 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." For better appreciation of the point involved, the facts of that case may also be briefly stated :- The Superintendent of Police had raided the residential premises of the appellant and had recovered a mining sponge gold ball weighing 4.5 grams and 1276 grams of 'gold bearing sand'. It was on this basis that criminal case was launched against him. On the same set of facts, constituting the raid and recovery, departmental proceedings were initiated against the appellant as the "recovery" was treated to be a 'misconduct'. On the service of the charge sheet, the appellant raised an objection that the departmental proceedings may be stayed as the basis of these proceedings was the raid conducted at his residence on which basis a criminal case had already been launched against him. The findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, indicated that the charges framed against the appellant were sought to be proved by Police Officers and Panch witnesses, who had raided the house of the appellant and had effected recovery. They were the only witnesses examined by the Inquiry Officer and the Inquiry Officer, relying upon their statements, came to the conclusion that the charges were established against the appellant. The same witnesses were examined in the criminal case but the court, on a consideration of the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that no search was conducted nor was any recovery made from the residence of the appellant. The whole case of the prosecution was thrown out and the appellant was acquitted. The same witnesses were examined in the criminal case but the court, on a consideration of the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that no search was conducted nor was any recovery made from the residence of the appellant. The whole case of the prosecution was thrown out and the appellant was acquitted. In this situation, therefore, where the appellant was acquitted by a judicial pronouncement with the finding that the "raid and recovery" at the residence of the appellant were not proved, it would be unjust, unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded at the ex parte departmental proceedings, to stand. The Hon'ble Apex Court held - "Since the facts and the evidence in both the proceedings, namely, the departmental proceedings and the criminal case were the same without there being any iota of difference, the distinction, which is usually drawn as between the departmental proceedings and the criminal case on the basis of approach and burden of proof, would not be applicable to the instant case." Accordingly, the Hon'ble Apex court declined to direct institution of fresh departmental inquiry against the delinquent official on the same set of facts and directed that the appellant be re-instated. 6. From the above decision, it is obvious that there is no bar to hold a departmental, inquiry and a criminal proceeding simultaneously, but if the departmental inquiry is drawn up based on identical set of facts, an order of acquittal by a criminal court can conclude the departmental proceeding. 7. Let me now proceed to examine whether the impugned disciplinary proceeding and the criminal case, wherein the petitioner was acquitted, are based on identical and similar set of facts. For this purpose, the charge against the petitioner in the said criminal case, may be reproduced from the police report dated 9.9.2001 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) as under :- "The fact of the case in brief is that on 8.9.2001 night received an information through our telephone that two staff of DFO office has creating disturbance over office complex/nearby areas after consumed alcohol. They also furious motive to other staff and abusing slang language to the DFO also. They also kept key of main gate forcibly from night guard. Received on that information enter the fact in G.D. vide No. 357 of dated 8.9.2001. Accordingly self with O/C P.S. went to DFO office Kanchanpur to verify the information. They also furious motive to other staff and abusing slang language to the DFO also. They also kept key of main gate forcibly from night guard. Received on that information enter the fact in G.D. vide No. 357 of dated 8.9.2001. Accordingly self with O/C P.S. went to DFO office Kanchanpur to verify the information. On reaching at DFO office examine the marginally hold witnesses and established that noted in Col. No. 3 has creating disturbance at DFO office complex as well as out side of the complex in open public place after consumed alcohol. Noted in Col. No. 3 also forcibly taken away key of main gate from the night guard. After lock and key of main gate, at that time DFO KCP was outside Complex. When DFO was return back who did not enter into his residence, (quarter). On seeing the DFO they abusing slang language to the DFO and also threatened him and his other staff. On reaching at DFO Office contact with DFO to stated that noted in Col. No. 3 may brought to P.S. for safety of his life. Accordingly on requesting DFO Key noted in Col. No. 3 handed over us from office complex to take N/A as per law. During handed over the persons presumed that they were consumed alcohol. Accordingly on way back to P.S. they were medically examined and Dr. D, R. Paul opined that they were consumed alcohol but take care of them self. Accordingly arrested them under Section 151 Cr.P.C. and taken into custody. So far information received from locality they always creating disturbs over DFO office complex as well as adjoining public places. Hence I do hereby submit P/R against them noted in Col. No. 3 vide P/R No. 104 and under Section, 290/510 IPC for factuing trial in open court of law for shake of justice. Witnesses may kindly be summoned to prove the case." It may also be relevant to re-produce herein the Articles of charges of the impugned departmental proceeding - "Article - I. That said Shri Dhrubajit Debbarma, LDC (U/S) while functioning as Lower Division Clerk in the office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Kanchanpur Forest Division, Kanchanpur intensionally harassed his superior officer and humiliated him in presence of subordinate staff, public and personnel of other Government organisation to lower down the public image of his superior authority to the detriment of Government interest. Thus said Shri Dhrubajit Debbarma, LDC (U/S) is charged for serious misconduct, gross irresponsibility, mis-behaviour, lack in absolute integrity and unbecoming of a Government servant. Article - II That said Shri Dhrubajit Debbarma, LDC (U/S) while functioning as Lower Division Clerk in the office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Kanchanpur Forest Division, Kanchapur created disturbance in the office premise of the office of Divisional Forest Officer, Kanchanpur Forest Division, Kanchanpur after consuming alcohol and threatened Divisional Forest Officer, Kanchanpur, and humiliated Divisional Forest Officer, Kanchanpur by using abusive language to the detriment of Government interest. Thus said Shri Dhrubajit Debbarma, LDC (U/S) is charged for serious misconduct, gross irresponsibility, mis-behaviour, lack in absolute integrity, gross indiscipline un-becoming of a Government servant." 8. It is vehemently contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the charges contained in the criminal case and those in the impugned disciplinary proceeding are based on identical and similar set of facts and that the evidences are also identical and as such the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case concludes the impugned departmental proceeding. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State respondents strenuously argued that the articles of charges in the impugned disciplinary proceeding and the charges against the petitioner in the criminal case are not identical. He also contended that whereas in the said criminal case, the petitioner was charged in the offence of creating public nuisance, in the impugned disciplinary proceeding the petitioner was charged basically for insubordination against his superior officer. 9. I have carefully considered the rival contentions of both the parties. Even a cursory look on the Article of Charge No. I will show that the petitioner is charged with intentionally harassing his superior officer and humiliating him in the presence of his subordinate staff thereby lowering the image of his superior authority, which constitutes misconduct, gross irresponsibility and mis-behaviour, which is unbecoming of a Government servants I have also gone through the statement of imputation of mis-conduct or mis-behaviour in support of Article of Charge-I framed against the petitioner. The said statement of imputation leaves no shadow of doubt that the pith and substance of the charges levelled against the petitioner in the departmental enquiry is insubordination and mis-behaviour against his superior officer. The said statement of imputation leaves no shadow of doubt that the pith and substance of the charges levelled against the petitioner in the departmental enquiry is insubordination and mis-behaviour against his superior officer. On the other hand, the charge against the petitioner in the said criminal case is basically the commission of offence of public nuisance and misconduct in public place by a drunken person, which has nothing to do with insubordination. In the impugned departmental proceeding, the petitioner has been charged with mis-behaviour and humiliating his superior officer. A conjoint reading of the police report in the said criminal case and the articles of charge-I levelled against the petitioner in the impugned disciplinary proceeding will clearly demonstrate that the said criminal case and the impugned disciplinary proceeding are not based on identical or similar set of facts or evidence even though they arose out of the same incident. In the light of my findings. I do not find any reason for interfering with the impugned disciplinary proceeding and the impugned Order dated 5.4.2003, passed by the respondents. 10. In the result, the writ petition is without any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed which is hereby dismissed. No costs. Interim order, if any stands vacated. However, the respondents are directed to complete the disciplinary proceeding within a period of three months provided the petitioner gives co-operation to the disciplinary authority. Petition dismissed.