Judgment , J. 1. This petition seeks a direction for stay of departmental proceedings pending criminal case, inter-alia, under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, `the Act). 2. A criminal case has been registered against the petitioner at the instance of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for alleged fraud while working as Manager of the Bank for which charge sheet had been duly filed. On identical charges, charge sheet dated 12.1.2007 has also been served on the petitioner and an Enquiry Officer has been appointed. The petitioner made a prayer that departmental proceedings be stayed pending criminal trial. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if departmental proceedings go on, the petitioner will have to disclose his defence which would prejudice him in the criminal trial. The documents which have to be produced in criminal trial are not available in the departmental enquiry. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in Tata Oil Mills Co. Limited v. The Workmen, AIR 1965 SC 155, Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited and another, 1999(2) RSJ 318; 1999(2) SLR 338 (SC] and Makhan Singh v. Narainpura Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Limited and another, Recent Services Judgements (1950-1988) Vol. 1 342. 4. In Tata Oil Mills (supra), it was observed that it may be unfair to compel a workman to disclose his defence in departmental enquiry when criminal case on a serious charge is pending. However, it did not mean that domestic enquiry must be stayed. In that case, enquiry held pending criminal case was upheld. 5. In Capt. M. Paul (supra), it was held that though, there was no legal bar for proceedings simultaneously being taken, it has to be decided from case to case whether disciplinary proceedings should be interdicted pending criminal trial. On the facts of that case, it was held that enquiry was vitiated by non payment of subsistence allowance as well as on account of acquittal by the criminal Court on the same allegations. 6. In Makhan Singh (supra), termination of services without holding enquiry was held to be vitiated. 7. On the facts of that case, it was held that enquiry was vitiated by non payment of subsistence allowance as well as on account of acquittal by the criminal Court on the same allegations. 6. In Makhan Singh (supra), termination of services without holding enquiry was held to be vitiated. 7. In State Bank of India v. R.B. Sharma, AIR 2004 SC 4144 : [2004(5) SLR 429 (SC], legal position was reviewed and it was held that proceedings in criminal case and departmental proceedings could go on simultaneously as purpose of both the proceedings was different. There was no straight jacket formula as to in which case departmental proceedings should be stayed pending criminal trial. Criminal trial may get prolonged and in such a circumstance, departmental proceedings cannot be stayed. 8. Thus, it is not always necessary that departmental proceedings should be stayed pending criminal trial in every case on the ground that criminal trial was pending and the employee could not be required to disclose his defence. Whether or not the petitioner will be prejudiced by conduct of enquiry pending criminal trial, is a matter to be appreciated during enquiry or thereafter. The standard of proof required being different in both proceedings and there being no bar to departmental proceedings being continued, we do not find any ground to entertain this petition at this stage. The petition is dismissed.