JUDGMENT Honble B.A. Zaidi, J.—The petitioner was a Branch Manager, in The Punjab and Sind Bank at Gadarian Purva Branch, Kanpur. He is said to have committed defalcation to the extent of around Rs. 67,00,000/-. He was consequently, suspended and an F.I.R. was lodged with the C.B.I. which has taken up the investigation. The petitioner assailed it in this writ petition and seeks the following reliefs : (i) that his suspension was illegal because no departmental enquiry was ordered before his suspension. (ii) that the suspension order of the petitioner be quashed because it was passed without departmental enquiry being ordered. (iii) that the departmental enquiry needs to be quashed because C.B.I. enquiry is in progress and both cannot continue together; and 2. We have heard Sri Siddhartha Srivastava, Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pramod Jain, Counsel appearing for respondents. 3. It was also contended that in the departmental enquiry, the Inquiry Officer has rejected the application of the petitioner by which he had applied for appointment of his representative and copies of relevant documents have not been furnished to him, but no relief on these two counts has been claimed in respect of these 2 matters. Therefore, it was hardly relevant to mention the same in the writ petition, and if there is any grouse on this score it has to be placed before the Inquiry Officer. 4. Coming to the 3 issues mentioned above and taking up for consideration the first one, it will be seen that no rule or regulation has been cited before us by the Counsel for the petitioner that no suspension can be ordered without enquiry being initiated. It was for the Counsel of the petitioner to show to the Court that order of suspension without ordering an enquiry is illegal and contrary to rules and regulations. This is an averment without proof. The Court is not aware of any general principle of law, nor has any case law, being cited in this regard, that no suspension, can be ordered without any enquiry been first initiated. The contention of the petitioner must, therefore, fail. 5. This is an averment without proof. The Court is not aware of any general principle of law, nor has any case law, being cited in this regard, that no suspension, can be ordered without any enquiry been first initiated. The contention of the petitioner must, therefore, fail. 5. As regard to second contention of the petitioner this his suspension order be quashed because it was passed without departmental enquiry being ordered, it is again to be noticed that no Rule or Regulation has been referred by the Counsel for the petitioner and no case law has been referred to, in this regard. Moreover, a departmental enquiry has now been ordered, and is on way, as such, the deficiency has been made good and the plea of the petitioner that the suspension was made without a departmental enquiry being ordered is no more relevant, now. There is consequently no substance in this contention. 6. Now coming to the last and the main contention that the departmental enquiry needs to be quashed because C.B.I. enquiry is in progress, and since both rest on the same facts and evidence, they cannot go together, it is to be noted that the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard is contained in the case of State Bank of India and others v. R.B. Sharma, reported in (2004) 7 SCC 27 . The substance of the findings is contained in para 7 of this report which is as follows:— “It is fairly well-settled position in law that on basic principles proceedings in criminal case and departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously, except where departmental proceedings and criminal case are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common.” 7. In order to appreciate surrounding features and focus, it would be appropriate to quote further observations made in para 8 of the report made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. “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 the offender owes to the society, or for breach 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. Criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of a duty the offender owes to the society, or for breach 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. 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 criminal case unless the charge in the criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated question of fact and law. Offence generally implies infringement of public duty, as distinguished from 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 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short “the Evidence Act”). Converse is the case of departmental enquiry. The enquiry in a departmental proceedings 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.” 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court referred in this case to the earlier case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another, (1999) 3 SCC 679 and the law laid down there under the approved the same. This is what was observed:— “In Capt. The Hon’ble Supreme Court referred in this case to the earlier case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another, (1999) 3 SCC 679 and the law laid down there under the approved the same. This is what was observed:— “In Capt. M. Paul Anthony case, this Court indicated some of the fact situations which would govern the question whether departmental proceedings should be kept in abeyance during pendency of a criminal case. In paragraph 12 conclusions which are deducible from various decisions were summarized. They are as follows: (SCC, p. 691). (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. (ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and 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 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. It will appear from the observations made in sub-para (iii) of para 12 that the question whether the charges in criminal case are grave or complicated questions of law or facts are involved in that case will depend upon the nature and the evidence launched against the employee on the basis of the evidence and materials collected against him during the investigation or as reflected in the charge-sheet. 10. In the present case, no charge-sheet has yet been filed by the investigating agency and it cannot be ascertained, whether the case is of grave nature or complicated questions of fact and law are involved. One of the essential conditions, therefore, which prohibits simultaneous functioning of two enquiries is, therefore, unavailable in this case. The other factor prohibiting simultaneous enquiries by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is that the evidence in the two cases being identical and being based on same se to facts as mentioned in para No. 7 above. 11. Charge-sheet (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) based on statement of allegations filed in the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner is on record and it will show that the matters which are to be considered in the departmental enquiry shall substantially different from those which will come up for consideration at the criminal trial, for example in the charge-sheet, it has been mentioned that the petitioner did not maintain proper entries for entries being made and that in the other registers, proper entries have not been made and the rules and regulations of the bank with regard to maintenance of register were not followed. These are not the matters which are to come up for consideration in the criminal trial. What will be seen at the trial is the intention of the petitioner to cheat and misappropriate and the action in this regard, which followed. It cannot, therefore, be said that the evidence in the two proceedings will be identical and will be based on the same set of facts. 12. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the First Information Report (Annexures 1 and 2 to the writ petition) filed by the bank authority but it can safely be noted that the contents of first information report are not material because the pronouncement of Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), refers only to charge-sheet, as mentioned in para Nos. 7 and 8 and not to the First Information Report. 7 and 8 and not to the First Information Report. The reason for the same is obvious which is that the First Information Report does not contain evidence and mention only allegations. 13. The learned Counsel for the petitioner finally posed the question before us, that in case the petitioner is acquitted in criminal trial and, before bank, he has been dismissed on the basis of the departmental proceedings, there will arise an anomaly. In the first place, it cannot be termed an anomaly, which necessitates avoidance and besides the law is full of anomalies and anomalies in law can coexist unless the anomaly disrupts and disturbs equity and the normal functioning of law. Even if the apprehension of the Counsel for the petitioner comes true, no such anomaly will occur, which may require rectification. Two enquiries can always yield different results. On one hand, it is to be seen that the criminal trials are taking decades and the purpose of the petitioner may be clinging to his office and delay the criminal trial. 14. The perspective of the Court needs to be upbeat and not regressive if we cannot accelerate criminal trial, we should not stall collateral proceedings. 15. In this case, therefore, two proceedings criminal and departmental can proceed simultaneously. 16. The petition consequently fails and is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. ————