VUENDER JAIN,j. ( 1 ) WHEN this appeal was filed against the impugned order passed by the learned Single judge, this Court on 8. 3. 2002 had stayed the departmental proceedings. Almost three years have passed, the departmental proceedings stand stayed. It will take some time for the appeal to be disposed of. It is contended by learned counsel for the respondent that in view of protection, which the delinquent officer has been given, learned single Judge has not touched on the aspect j of the gravity of offence and the complicated question of law and fact involved in the matter. Therefore, he seriously contends that the departmental enquiry should remain stayed till the witnesses depose before the criminal court. ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has argued that some witnesses of the prosecution have already been examined and some witnesses remain to be examined. The next date of hearing in the criminal court is 31. 3. 2005. Therefore, no prejudice will be caused to the respondent. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Taneja has contended that the criminal trial and the departmental enquiry are in two different domains. Learned counsel for the respondent has referred to the judgment rendered in kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan Vs. T. Srinivas (2004) 7 SSC 442 which aptly deals with the situation. He further contended that for the last three years, in view of the stay order passed by this Court, departmental proceedings have not been initiated against the appellant, although the charge against the appellant was of receiving/demanding illegal gratification. ( 3 ) WE have given our careful considerations to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties. Normally, the departmental proceedings are initiated to maintain probity in service and it is for the department concerned to take appropriate/ suitable measures so as to keep the administrative hierarchy in order. Therefore, court should normally not interfere and stay departmental proceedings. The law laid down in the case of Capt. M. Paul Antony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. (1999) 3 SCC 679 also deals with the basic principles regarding simultaneous proceedings in a criminal case, and departmental proceedings. Therefore, court should normally not interfere and stay departmental proceedings. The law laid down in the case of Capt. M. Paul Antony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. (1999) 3 SCC 679 also deals with the basic principles regarding simultaneous proceedings in a criminal case, and departmental proceedings. The court has culled out certain principles to safeguard the interest of delinquent officer who is also faced with criminal prosecution as his defence should not be prejudiced and he must have a fair trial in the criminal proceeding. In State of Rajasthan Vs. B. K. Meena (1996) 6 scc 417 Supreme Court held as under: "the only ground suggested in the decisions of the Supreme Court as constituting a valid ground for staying 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. It means that not only the charges must be grave but the case must involve complicated questions of law and fact. Moreover, advisability , desirability or propriety , as the case may be, of staying the departmental enquiry has to be determined in each case taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case. 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 Supreme court s decisions. ( 4 ) THE Supreme Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya sangathan (supra) has also highlighted that the advisability, desirability or propriety as the case may be, of staying the departmental enquiry has to be determined in each case taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant has contended that the learned Single Judge has not taken into consideration complicated questions of law and fact. We would not like to say anything on that contention at this stage, as ware not disposing of the appeal. ( 5 ) FOR the reasons and law stated above, we do not deem it fit to stay the departmental proceedings in this case. We would not like to say anything on that contention at this stage, as ware not disposing of the appeal. ( 5 ) FOR the reasons and law stated above, we do not deem it fit to stay the departmental proceedings in this case. Therefore, we vacate the interim stay, However, to safeguard the interests of the petitioner, we direct the respondent to continue and complete the departmental proceedings and keep the files of the departmental proceedings in a sealed cover, to be opened subject to further orders by this Court. ( 6 ) WITH these directions, application stands disposed of. .