Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. This petition seeks a direction to stay departmental enquiry against the petitioner during pendency of trial in a criminal case. 2. Case of the petitioner is that he was working as a Clerk in the bank. He was given charge sheet on the allegation of misappropriation. A criminal case was also registered and after investigation, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed charge sheet against the petitioner before the Court. Disciplinary proceedings were also initiated and an Enquiry Officer was appointed, even though, the matter was sub-judice before the criminal Court. Since the charges in the criminal Court and in the departmental enquiry were identical, the departmental enquiry was liable to be stayed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that departmental enquiry could not be continued as criminal proceedings were pending against the petitioner. Reliance has been placed on judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited, AIR 1999 SC 1416 and judgment of the Karnataka High Court in S. Jayarajan v. The Reserve Bank of India, 1997(2) SCT 585]. 4. We are unable to accept the submission made. Criminal proceedings have been pending for the last four years and trial may take long. 5. In State Bank of India v. R.B. Sharma, AIR 2004 SC 4144, it was observed by the Honble Supreme Court : "7. 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. 8. The purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution are two different and distinct aspects. The 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. 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 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 or 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. A three Judge Bench of this Court in Depot Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya and others (1997(2) SCC 699) analysed the legal position in great detail on the above lines. The aforesaid position was also noted in State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena, (1996(6) SCC 417). xx xx xx xx xx 11. In Capt. M. Paul Anthonys case (supra) 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 22 conclusions which are deducible from various decisions were summarised. xx xx xx xx xx 11. In Capt. M. Paul Anthonys case (supra) 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 22 conclusions which are deducible from various decisions were summarised. They are as follows : (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 factors mentioned at (i) 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 even though, where departmental proceedings and criminal case are based on same set of facts and evidence is common, it may be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings but this cannot be an inflexible rule. Due regard has to be given to the fact that departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. Even where departmental proceedings are stayed, if the trial does not conclude at an early date, proceedings can be resumed. Due regard has to be given to the fact that departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. Even where departmental proceedings are stayed, if the trial does not conclude at an early date, proceedings can be resumed. 6 In the present case, the criminal proceedings are already pending for more than four years and in these circumstances, if the departmental proceedings have been initiated, there is no ground to interfere with the same by holding that in no case, departmental proceedings can be continued where criminal case was pending. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the petitioner will be prejudiced by absence of relevant documents, which are with the CBI. 8. We do not express any opinion on this issue at this stage, as this issue will be considered during the course of enquiry or in any subsequent proceedings. 9. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.