CYRIAC JOSEPH, J. ( 1 ) PER The petitioner is a Chief Engineer (Drilling) in the Oil and Natural Gas commission Ltd. He is presently under suspension pending disciplinary action against him. He filed this writ petition on October 12, 2004 praying to stay the departmental proceedings being conducted against him pursuant to the order dated June 10, 2003 (Annexure 8) till the final outcome of the criminal case pending against him. ( 2 ) THOUGH the petitioner had prayed for an interim order restraining the respondents from proceeding with the departmental enquiry till the final outcome of the writ petition, the request was rejected by this Court on February 9, 2005. Consequently, the departmental enquiry against the petitioner was continued and it has already been completed. A copy of the enquiry report has already been supplied to the petitioner and the petitioner's objection to the enquiry report has already been submitted. In these circumstances, the writ petition has virtually become infructuous. ( 3 ) HOWEVER, Mr. M. C. Pant, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the criminal case pending against the petitioner before the Special Judge, C. B. I, at vishakhapatnam in respect of the same set of facts and allegations based on which the departmental proceedings were initiated against him, the respondents were bound to keep the departmental proceedings in abeyance till the criminal case was over. It is contended that the action of the respondents in continuing the disciplinary proceedings while the criminal case is pending is illegal and hence the disciplinary proceedings are vitiated. We do not see any merit in this contention. In Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. reported in AIR 1999 SC 1416 : 1999 (3) SCC 679 : 1999-I-LLJ-1094, the Hon'ble Supreme court has laid down the law on the subject in the following words at p. 100 of LLJ:"22. . . . . . . . . . (i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. . . . . . . . . . (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 facts 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, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest. "thus, there is no bar in conducting the departmental proceedings and the proceedings in a criminal case simultaneously. It may be desirable in certain circumstances to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. But by waiting for the conclusion of the criminal case, if the departmental proceedings are likely to be unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings cannot be stayed. Admittedly, the criminal case against the petitioner has not yet been concluded and it is not likely to be concluded soon. In such circumstances, this was not a case where the departmental proceedings could be kept in abeyance on the ground that the criminal case was pending against the petitioner. Hence the departmental proceedings are not vitiated on the ground that it was conducted simultaneously with the criminal case. In such circumstances, this was not a case where the departmental proceedings could be kept in abeyance on the ground that the criminal case was pending against the petitioner. Hence the departmental proceedings are not vitiated on the ground that it was conducted simultaneously with the criminal case. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner then submitted that the petitioner had requested for change of the enquiry officer on the ground that the enquiry officer was biased against the petitioner, but the said request was neither considered nor granted by the respondents. This is not an issue raised in the writ petition. Moreover, even if the petitioner had made such a request and that has not been considered or granted, it is too late now to raise that issue before this Court, as the enquiry has already been completed and the enquiry report has been submitted. Even if the petitioner has got a case that the departmental proceedings are vitiated due to the bias of the enquiry officer who conducted the enquiry, he can raise such a contention in case he challenges the final order to be passed in the disciplinary proceedings. Hence, it is not necessary for this Court to express any opinion on that aspect. ( 5 ) IN the above circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed. --- *** --- .