Judgment 1. This is a matter in which the petitioner, it is indicated to the court, faces charges on bribery. A departmental proceeding was initiated and is pending. Also a chargesheet was submitted before the Special Judge, Patna. The criminal proceedings are after investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation. 2. The petitioner was a Section Supervisor with the establishment of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bihar Region, Patna. As both the criminal proceedings and the departmental proceed-ings are in motion, a petition was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal praying, in effect, that the departmental proceedings may remain stayed..The tribunal declined to grant that relief but indicated that the departmental proceedings be concluded within six months. 3. This petition has been filed to challenge the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Clearly, the purpose of the petition is that the deaprtmental proceedings be stalled and stayed to await the result of the criminal proceedings. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of the court to the qbservations made by the Supreme Court in sub-clause (ii) (in context) in the decision of Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr., 1999 (3) All India Services Law Journal 152. 5. The court is afraid that the observations of the Supreme Court have to be read as a whole and not limited to sub-clause (ii). For instance, the Supreme Court also says in sub-clause (iv) that "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 departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed". 6. In the circumstances, the tribunal has committed no error in not staying the departmental proceedings. 7. Dismissed.