JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, disciplinary proceeding, initiated against the Petitioner, needs to be stayed until disposal of the criminal prosecution launched against him is the question, which has arisen in the present writ petition. This question brings me, in fact, to the present question, namely, as to what principles govern stay of disciplinary proceedings, when there is a criminal case pending against a delinquent on the same set of facts. 2. I have heard Mr. S. Talapatra, learned Senior counsel, for the Petitioner, and Mr. P. K. Biswas, learned Central Govt. counsel, appearing on behalf of the Respondents. 3. Before I deal with the questions posed above, let me, set out, in brief, the material facts and various stages, which have led to the presentation of the present writ petition: (i) When the Petitioner was functioning as Cashier in the office of the Deputy Director of Small Industries Service Institute (in short, 'the SISF) at Agartala, an FIR was lodged, on 30.7.2000, at Agartala police station, by the Deputy Director of SISI alleging to the effect, inter alia, that the informant had been on leave and out of station with effect from 8.7.2000 to 24.7.2000, he rejoined office on 25.7.2000 and, in the afternoon of 30.7.2000, he came to know from the present Petitioner that the Petitioner had withdrawn, out of the accounts of his office, maintained as State Bank of India, H.G. Basak Road Branch, Agartala, an amount of Rs. 6,87,072/- by forging the informant's signature on a cheque drawn for the said amount and the cheque book was also recovered from the custody of the Petitioner. Based on this FIR, West Agartala Police Station Case No. 144/2000 under Sections468/471/420/409 IPC was registered. During investigation, one Satya Sarkar, a class-IV employee, working at the office of the SISI, was arrested and interrogated by the police. Following Satya Sarkar's arrest, the Petitioner surrendered in the Court; but he was taken on remand to police custody and interrogated by the police. During the course of investigation, the cheque (s), in question, and other relevant documents were seized and, on completion of investigation, police laid charge-sheet, on 30.12.2001, against the present Petitioner under Sections 468/471/420/409 IPC and against the said Satya Sarkar under Sections 468/471/420/409/411 IPC. During the course of investigation, the cheque (s), in question, and other relevant documents were seized and, on completion of investigation, police laid charge-sheet, on 30.12.2001, against the present Petitioner under Sections 468/471/420/409 IPC and against the said Satya Sarkar under Sections 468/471/420/409/411 IPC. By Memorandum, dated 28.6.2006, the disciplinary authority drew a disciplinary proceeding against the Petitioner on the three articles of charge, (ii) The Petitioner submitted, on 11.7.2006, his written statement, in defence, wherein he denied that he had committed any forgery and/or withdrawn any amount from the bank and/or misappropriated the same and/or made any statement, confessing or admitting his guilt, with regard to the accusations made against him. Along with his written statement aforementioned, the Petitioner also submitted, on 11.7.2006 itself, a representation to the disciplinary authority praying for stay of the disciplinary proceeding on the ground that a criminal case was pending against him on the same set of facts based on which the disciplinary proceeding had been drawn and that further progress of the disciplinary proceeding would adversely affect his defence in the trial of the criminal case inasmuch as disclosure of his defence, at the disciplinary proceeding, would cause serious prejudice to him. Notwithstanding the representation, dated 11.7.2006, so made by the Petitioner, the disciplinary authority passed an order, on 17.7.2006, detailing an enquiry officer for making enquiry into the charges framed against the Petitioner and also appointed a presenting officer in this regard. Following the appointments so made, the Enquiry Officer issued, 27.7.2006, a notice to the Petitioner directing him to attend the proceeding, which was to commence on 21.8.2006. Aggrieved by the notice of hearing so issued, the Petitioner is, now, before this Court with the help of the present writ petition seeking issuance of appropriate writ (s) staying further progress of the disciplinary proceeding until disposal of the criminal case. 4. Presenting the case, on behalf of the Petitioner, Mr. Aggrieved by the notice of hearing so issued, the Petitioner is, now, before this Court with the help of the present writ petition seeking issuance of appropriate writ (s) staying further progress of the disciplinary proceeding until disposal of the criminal case. 4. Presenting the case, on behalf of the Petitioner, Mr. Talapatra has submitted that in the case at hand, the disciplinary proceeding as well as the criminal trial are based on the same set of facts and since complicated questions of fact and law are involved in the trial as well as in the disciplinary proceeding, the present one is a fit case, wherein this Court may step in and stay further progress of the disciplinary proceeding in order to avoid any prejudice to the defence of the Petitioner at his criminal trial. Support for his submissions are sought to be derived by Mr. Talapatra from the cases of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Anr. reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 , and GM Tank v. State of Gujarat AIR 2006 SC 2129 . 5. Controverting the submissions made on behalf of the Petitioner, Mr. Biswas, learned Central Govt. counsel, has submitted that there is no absolute bar to the simultaneous progress of disciplinary proceeding as well as criminal trial. In the present case, contends Mr. Biswas, no complicated question of fact or law is involved and, hence, in such circumstances, pleads Mr. Biswas, the writ petition may not be entertained. In support of these submissions, Mr. Biswas places reliance on Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Ors. v. Sarvesh Berry reported in (2005)10 SCC 471 , and Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors. v. T. Srinivas AIR 2004 SC 4127 . 6. While considering the present writ petition, the distinction between a disciplinary proceeding drawn against a delinquent and his criminal prosecution needs to be borne in mind. While a disciplinary proceeding is aimed at maintaining discipline and efficiency of service, a criminal prosecution is launched, when the act of an offender is in violation of a duty, which the offender owes to the society, or when there is an omission to perform a duty, which the law casts on him. Thus, crime is an act of commission in violation of law or an act of omission of public duty. Thus, crime is an act of commission in violation of law or an act of omission of public duty. In a criminal trial, the offence is required to be proved in accordance with the standard of proof, which the Evidence Act conceives. However, so far as a departmental enquiry is concerned, it relates to conduct or breach of duty of a delinquent and penalty is imposed on him for the misconduct as may be defined under the relevant statutory rules or law. The strict standard of proof, which is the hallmark of a criminal trial, is not insisted in a disciplinary proceeding. What is required to be determined, in a case of present nature, is whether the disciplinary enquiry would seriously prejudice the delinquent in his defence, at the trial, in the criminal case. It is, therefore, not only necessary, but also imperative that disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible. 7. The purpose of departmental enquiry and criminal prosecution being different and distinct, there is no absolute bar to the simultaneous progress of a criminal case and also a disciplinary proceeding. There is no inflexible rules or guidelines for stay of a disciplinary proceeding, for, the question of stay has to be decided in the backdrop of the facts and circumstances of a given case. Even when criminal prosecution as well as departmental proceedings are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings are common, it is not necessary to stay the progress of the disciplinary enquiry unless the charge, in the criminal trial, is grave in nature involving complicated questions of fact and law. The Court, in a case of present nature, has to decide by taking into account the special features, if any, of the case as to whether simultaneously continuance of both-disciplinary proceeding as well as criminal trial-would be proper and fair or not. (See Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Ors. v. Sarvesh Berry reported in (2005) 10 SCC 471 ). 8. Having considered a number of authorities on the above subject, a two-Judges Bench of the Supreme Court, in Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra), summarized, in paragraph 22, the position of law thus: (i) Disciplinary proceeding and proceeding in criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously though separately. 8. Having considered a number of authorities on the above subject, a two-Judges Bench of the Supreme Court, in Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra), summarized, in paragraph 22, the position of law thus: (i) Disciplinary proceeding and proceeding in 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 is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of fact and law, it would be desirable to stay the disciplinary proceeding till 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. (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. 9. From what have been concluded in Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra), it is abundantly clear that merely on the ground that the disciplinary proceeding and the criminal case are based on identical and/or similar set of facts, departmental proceeding cannot be stayed unless the charge, in the criminal case, is of grave nature, which involves complicated questions of law and fact. Even in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (supra), a two-Judges Bench, while discussing the decision, in Capt. Even in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (supra), a two-Judges Bench, while discussing the decision, in Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra), has not deviated from the principles laid down, in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (supra), as regards the question as to when a disciplinary proceeding may be stayed due to pendency of a criminal trial. In fact, in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (supra), the Court observed: 7. It is a fairly well-settled position in law that on basic principles, proceedings in criminal case and 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 the evidence in both the proceedings in common. It is in these cases, the court has to decide, taking into account the special features of the case, whether simultaneous continuance of both would be proper. 11. There can be no straightjacket formula as to in which case the departmental proceedings are to be stayed. There may be cases where the trial of the case gets prolonged by the dilatory method adopted by the delinquent official. He cannot be permitted to, on one hand, prolong the criminal case and at the same time contended that the departmental proceedings should be stayed on the ground that the criminal case is pending. 10. To the same effect is the law, which the Apex Court laid down in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors. v. T. Srinivas AIR 2004 SC 4127 , wherein the Apex Court observed: 10. ...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 decision. The decision, in State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena and Ors. AIR 1997 SC 13 , has been reiterated in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (supra), which Mr. Biswas relied upon. 11. From the discussions held above, what can be deduced are, in brief, thus: Disciplinary enquiry and criminal trial can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. AIR 1997 SC 13 , has been reiterated in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (supra), which Mr. Biswas relied upon. 11. From the discussions held above, what can be deduced are, in brief, thus: Disciplinary enquiry and criminal trial can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. When the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal proceedings are based on identical or same set of facts and the charge, in the criminal case, is of a grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law, it is desirable to stay the disciplinary proceeding till conclusion of the criminal trial. The question, however, as to whether the nature of a charge, in a criminal case, is grave or not and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved, in a given case, or not will depend on the nature of the offence, the nature of the case, launched against the employee, and the materials collected against him during investigation. It is the cumulative effect of all such considerations, which will deter mine the question as to whether the disciplinary proceeding, in a given case, can be al lowed to proceed or not. 12. As regards the decision, in GM Tank (supra), which Mr. Talapatra relies upon, it is worth noticing that the question raised, in GM Tank (supra), was whether the acquittal of a delinquent, in a criminal trial, can be made a ground for either dispensing with the disciplinary proceeding or for terminating the disciplinary proceeding. Dealing with the question, so raised, the Apex Court made it clear, in GM Tank (supra), that merely because an accused is acquitted, the power of the disciplinary authority to continue with the departmental enquiry is not taken away nor is the disciplinary authority's discretion, in any way, fettered, though when an accused is honourably acquitted, his acquittal may become a factor to be taken into account in determining the findings or conclusions reached in the disciplinary proceeding. 13. 13. Bearing in mind the principles of law governing the stay of disciplinary proceeding during the pendency of a criminal trial against a delinquent, when I turn to the factual matrix of the present case, I notice that in the case at hand, the three articles of charges framed against the Petitioner run as under: ARTICLE I That the said Sri Sushanta Majumdar, LDC, SISI, Agartala, while functioning as cashier in the o/o the Dy. Director in-charge, SISI, Agartala, during the period on July, 2000, had most illegally and unauthorisedly withdrawn the Govt. money of Rs. 6,87,072/- out of office bank account vide cheque No. B/4 370833 dt. 20.7.2000 drawn on State Bank of India, HG Basak Road Branch, Agartala, by way of forgoing the signature of Dy. Director in-charge & DDO, SISI, Agartala, in his (DDO's) absence. ARTICLE II That during the aforesaid period and while functioning as cashier in the aforesaid office, the said Sri Sushanta Majumdar, LDC, SISI, Agartala, had surrendered in the Court on 31st July, 2000 against an FIR lodged by the office on 30.7.2000. As per the letter of SI (10) West PS Agartala, the said Sushanta Majumdar was suspended with effect from 1st August, 2000 by the said office vide order No. 4(16)/SISI/AGT/2000/837(1) dt 9.8.2000. ARTICLE III That during the aforesaid period and while functioning as cashier in the aforesaid office, the said Sushanta Majumdar had confessed his guilt and accordingly submitted a written statement relating to his confession of guilty on 30.7.2000. 14. From a careful reading of the articles of charge, it becomes abundantly clear that though the disciplinary proceeding as well as the criminal trial can be said to be based on almost similar set of facts, the fact remains that the present one is not a case, which can be said to involve complicated questions of fact and law. This inference gets strengthened from the list of documents, which the disciplinary authority proposes to prove, and the list of witnesses, through whom the disciplinary authority propose to establish the charges. The list of the documents contains FIR lodged against the Petitioner, the statement said to have been made by the Petitioner confessing his guilt, the investigating officer's application made to the Court seeking remand and the suspension order passed against the Petitioner. The list of the documents contains FIR lodged against the Petitioner, the statement said to have been made by the Petitioner confessing his guilt, the investigating officer's application made to the Court seeking remand and the suspension order passed against the Petitioner. It is important to note that the handwriting expert's opinion has not been enlisted as a document to be proved in the disciplinary proceeding; hence, no complicated questions of fact and law arises in the disciplinary proceeding. What the disciplinary proceeding has to determine is, whether the accused had confessed his guilt, in writing, and whether he had, illegally and unauthorisedly, withdrawn the amount of Rs. 6,87,072/-. Whether the accused had committed forgery or not is not a charge in the disciplinary proceeding. Thus, unlike the criminal trial, which the Petitioner faces, the Petitioner does not face the charge of forgery in the disciplinary proceeding. The criminal trial as well as departmental enquiry does not, therefore, stand on the same footing. 15. What emerges from the above discussion is that the disciplinary proceeding, in the present case, does not, if I may reiterate, involve complicated questions of fact and law for determination. The impression that no complicated questions of fact and law is involved gets strengthened from the fact that in his written statement, the Petitioner merely denied all the accusations made against him and, in his representation seeking stay of the departmental proceeding too, he merely stated that since both-disciplinary as well as criminal trial-are based on same set of facts, the progress of the disciplinary proceeding would prejudicially affect his criminal trial. The Petitioner has not assigned any reason as to how his defence in the criminal trial would be prejudiced if the disciplinary proceeding is continued nor is there any reason discernible, in this regard, even from the averments made in the writ petition. As a matter of fact, even at the time of moving of the present writ petition, nothing could be submitted, on behalf of the Petitioner, to show that further progress of the disciplinary proceeding would adversely affect the Petitioner's defence at his criminal trial. Situated thus, I see absolutely no reason to interfere with the further progress of the disciplinary proceeding. 16. Situated thus, I see absolutely no reason to interfere with the further progress of the disciplinary proceeding. 16. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, I do not find that present one is a case, wherein this Court shall, in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, interfere with the progress of the disciplinary proceeding drawn against the Petitioner. 17. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is not admitted and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. 18. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed