Judgment : The Petitioner seeks Writ certiorari to call for the records relating to the impunged order of Charge Memo passed by the Respondent in his Proceedings No. A4-12394/2002 dated 20.5.2004. 2. The Petitioner was appointed as the Village Assistant by direct recruitment on 18.3.1988 under the category of physically handicapped and also belonging to SC community. The Petitioner was issued with an impugned Charge Memo dated 20.5.2004 by the Respondent in Na.Ka.A4/12394/02, calling written explanation of the Petitioner to the charges levelled against him. The Charge memo was issued to the Petitioner alleging that he has produced bogus 8th Standard School Transfer Certificates and also submitted bogus birth certificate and on the strength of the bogus certificate, joined the Government service. The Petitioner was placed under suspension by the Respondent vide proceedings No.Na.Ka.A4-12394/2002 dated 7.6.2004. 3. The Respondent has also lodged a Police Complaint on 8.6.2004 and the same registered in Crime No.283/2004 under Sections 415, 466 and 471 I.P.C. on the file of Pudukkottai Police Station. Charge Sheet was also filed and the Criminal case is pending against the Petitioner on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tuticorin. 4. The contention of the Petitioner is that the Charge of Forgery and production of bogus certificates are flimsy charges and the Impugned Charge memo is liable to be set aside. It is further contended that the appointment of the Petitioner was not made on the basis of educational qualification since no educational qualifications is prescribed under the Rules and Tamil Nadu Village Officer Service Rules for the post of Village Assistant and hence, there is no substance in the Charges. 5. Placing reliance upon the decision reported in 2006 (1) CTC 689 : (2006) 1 MLJ 511 , learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that both the Departmental Proceedings and the Criminal case are based on the same set of facts and hence, the Department cannot proceed in the Departmental Enquiry and the Impugned Charge Memo is to be quashed. 6. The Petitioner was issued the Charge Memo by the proceedings in Na.Ka.No. A4/12394/02 dated 20.05.2004 and the following charges were levelled against the Petitioner: 7. First Information Report is also registered against the Petitioner under Section 415, 466 and 471 I.P.C. in Crime No. 283 of 2004. 6. The Petitioner was issued the Charge Memo by the proceedings in Na.Ka.No. A4/12394/02 dated 20.05.2004 and the following charges were levelled against the Petitioner: 7. First Information Report is also registered against the Petitioner under Section 415, 466 and 471 I.P.C. in Crime No. 283 of 2004. The contents of the F.I.R. is also on the same allegations of production of false educational certificate and bogus birth certificate. The complaint was lodged by the Tahsildhar, Srivaikuntam. 8. The main contention urged by the Petitioner is that the Criminal complaint also proceeds on the same set of facts viz., Productions of bogus Educational Certificate and Birth Certificate and hence, there cannot be two parallel proceedings. It is further submitted that when the criminal action and the Departmental proceedings are founded on the same set or facts, the Departmental proceeding is to be quashed or at least to be deferred till the conclusion of the Criminal Trial. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in Indian Overseas Bank v. Ganesan Indian Overseas Bank v. Ganesan Indian Overseas Bank v. Ganesan (2006) 1 MLJ 511 : 2006 (1) CTC 689 . In the said decision, the Division Bench has referred the decision of the Supreme Court reported in State Bank of India and Others v. R.B. Sharma State Bank of India and Others v. R.B. Sharma State Bank of India and Others v. R.B. Sharma AIR 2004 SC 4144 : 2004-III-LLJ-528: (2004) 7 SCC 27 wherein the Supreme Court has observed at p. 516 of MLJ: “ 8.…. The purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution are two different and distinct aspects. Criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of a duty and the offender owes to the society, or for branch of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. So crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. It would, therefore, be expedient that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible. So crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. It would, therefore, be expedient that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible. It is not, therefore, desirable to lay down any guidelines as inflexible rules in which the departmental proceedings may or may not be stayed pending trial in criminal case against the delinquent officer. Each case requires to be considered in the backdrop of its own facts and circumstances. There would be 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 law. Offence generally implies infringement of public duty, 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 Indian Evidence Act. Converse is the case of departmental enquiry. The enquiry in a departmental proceeding 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 is a settled legal position. 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. 9. Referring to the above said decision in Indian Overseas Bank v. Ganesan Indian Overseas Bank v. Ganesan Indian Overseas Bank v. Ganesan ( supra) ), the Division Bench of this Court has held at Indian Overseas Bank v. Ganesan Indian Overseas Bank v. Ganesan Indian Overseas Bank v. Ganesan (2006) 1 MLJ pp. 516 & Indian Overseas Bank v. Ganesan Indian Overseas Bank v. Ganesan Indian Overseas Bank v. Ganesan (2006) 1 MLJ pp. 516 & Indian Overseas Bank v. Ganesan Indian Overseas Bank v. Ganesan Indian Overseas Bank v. Ganesan (2006) 1 MLJ pp. 517 of MLJ: “ 13… It is thus fairly settled law that on basic principles proceedings in a criminal case and a departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously, except in some cases where departmental proceedings and criminal case are based on the same set of facts and evidence in both the proceedings are same. It is in these cases the Court has to decide taking into account special features of the case whether simultaneous continuance of both would be proper. There can be no straight jacket formula as to in which case the departmental proceedings have to be stayed, and the Court will have to decide in the given circumstances of a particular case as to whether disciplinary proceedings should be interdicted, pending criminal trial.” 10. It is thus fairly settled position that there could be no straight jacket formula as to in which case the Departmental proceedings have to be stayed. In the given facts and circumstances of a particular case, the Court will have to decide as to whether disciplinary proceedings should be deferred pending criminal trial. In the case in hand, the Petitioner is alleged to have produced a bogus certificate. Discipline has to be maintained in the service and department has to ensure efficiency of public service. On the other hand, in the criminal case, for proving the charges, the Prosecution may have to prove cheating and also mens-rea of the accused in producing the bogus certificate and establish the offence beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, in the Departmental Proceedings, no such mens rea is required to be established. The Criminal case stands entirely on a different footing. What is to be established in the Departmental proceedings is the production of bogus certificate and to ensure discipline in the Department. 11. Grave allegation of production of bogus School Certificate and Birth Certificate is levelled against the Petitioner. If the Department is to wait till the conclusion of the Criminal case, it would demoralise the efficiency in the service. In consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that this is not a fit case where the disciplinary proceedings should be interdicted, pending criminal trial. 12. If the Department is to wait till the conclusion of the Criminal case, it would demoralise the efficiency in the service. In consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that this is not a fit case where the disciplinary proceedings should be interdicted, pending criminal trial. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for in the Writ Petition and the same is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected W.P.M.P.(MD) No. 3807 and 3808 of 2006 are dismissed.