JUDGMENT Honble Bharati Sapru, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri S.P. Pandey and the learned Standing Counsel Sri A.C. Mishra. 2. The present petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to stay the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioners keeping the departmental proceedings in abeyance till the conclusion of proceedings of criminal case initiated against the petitioners. 3. The facts of the case are that the petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3 are constables, who are posted in Kanpur Nagar. The three petitioners were deputed duty to accompany the two under-trials from Kanpur to Faridabad in connection with a criminal case bearing No. 669 of 2002 under Sections 457, 380 and 311, I.P.C. The accused were produced before the Court concerned. 4. Having produced the accused before the Court concerned on 12.12.2005, were brought back from Faridabad to Kanpur by the train Lichivi Express. At about 9 p.m. when the train was reached Tundla Railway Station, the train slowed down at the outer signal, the three petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3 were standing along with the accused persons in the gallery of the compartment. According to the petitioners, the door of compartment was opened and there was heavy rush; both the accused persons were handcuffed and roped were also tied with handcuff but taking advantage of heavy rush in the compartment, they gave a jolt and jumped out from running train with handcuff and rope. All the petitioners immediately jumped out of train but since the train had proceeded further, taking the advantage of the darkness, both the accused persons escaped in Tundla. 5. It is the petitioners’ contention that they immediately went to the police station GRP, Tundla for lodging an F.I.R. but the S.O. of GRP Tundla refused to register the same. Therefore the petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3 constables who came to Kanpur and registered an F.I.R. on 14.12.2005 through case crime No. 28 of 2006 under Sections 223 and 224, I.P.C. against the accused persons. 6. According to the petitioners, they reported the matter to the Reserve Inspeotor, 1st Police Lines, Kanpur Nagar on 13.12.2005. It is also stated that because the incident occurred at Tundla, the investigation of the case was required to be done by the police at Tundla. 7. 6. According to the petitioners, they reported the matter to the Reserve Inspeotor, 1st Police Lines, Kanpur Nagar on 13.12.2005. It is also stated that because the incident occurred at Tundla, the investigation of the case was required to be done by the police at Tundla. 7. The petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3 were charged with negligence and were placed on suspension by an order dated 16.12.2005. 8. In pursuance of the incident on 12.12.2005 and on account of the alleged negligence of the petitioners, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by Superintendent of Police, Traffic, Kanpur, who submitted his report on 16.5.2006. On the basis of the said report, disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the petitioners under Rule 14 (1) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. 9. Against the three petitioners, respondent No. 3 had issued charge-sheets, one of which is annexed as Annexure to the writ petition. 10. The charge as detailed in the charge-sheet is for gross negligence in duty, indifference, slackness and dereliction in duty and in effect the charges amount to misconduct. The petitioners have replied to the charge-sheet and the departmental enquiry is going on. 11. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that chargesheet, which had been issued against the petitioners includes in it documentary evidence, which is to be used against the petitioners and that the F.I.R. lodged by the petitioners themselves under Sections 223 and 224 I.P.C. on 14.12.2005 at P.S. Kotwali, Kanpur Nagar. 12. Petitioners therefore contend that the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are both based on identical and similar set of facts. In support of his argument, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance in the case of Cap. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., (1999) 3 SCC 679 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held in para 22 (ii) of the report which reads as under : “(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.” 13. The other para which the learned Counsel for the petitioners relies on is para 34, in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has stated that it would be unjust, unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded at the ex-parte departmental proceedings to stand but admittedly this is not a case of ex-parte departmental proceedings. The petitioners have been charge-sheeted and are participating in the enquiry proceedings. A full and fair opportunity is being afforded to them for purpose of the departmental enquiry. Therefore there is no question of any oppression in the present case. 14. In para 14 of the writ petition, the petitioners have contended that because the same set of facts are there both in the disciplinary proceedings as well as in the criminal trial, it would seriously prejudice the petitioners in their defence in the criminal case. However, the petitioners have not disclosed how the trial in criminal case would be prejudiced. It has also not been disclosed in the writ petition as to what are the complicated questions of law or fact in this particular case, which would lead to any kind of prejudice to the petitioners in the criminal trial, if the departmental enquiry was allowed to be carried on. 15. In reply to the argument as advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel has argued that in fact there are no complicated questions of fact or law in the present case, which have been disclosed and would lead to any kind of prejudice to the petitioners if the criminal proceedings are permitted to proceed. He argues that the law is well-settled that both disciplinary proceedings and the criminal proceedings can carry on simultaneously. 16. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is hardly any dispute about the incident. Petitioners were there on the spot of the incident. Two accused persons fled from their custody. In fact it is the petitioners, who have registered an F.I.R. at Kanpur. 17. Learned standing counsel has placed reliance on the case of State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena, (1996) 6 SCC 417 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that there is no legal bar for both the proceedings (departmental and criminal proceedings) to go on simultaneously. In fact it is the petitioners, who have registered an F.I.R. at Kanpur. 17. Learned standing counsel has placed reliance on the case of State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena, (1996) 6 SCC 417 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that there is no legal bar for both the proceedings (departmental and criminal proceedings) to go on simultaneously. The staying of disciplinary proceedings, it was emphasized was a matter to be taken having regard to the facts and circumstances on a given case and no hard and fast rules can be enunciated in that behalf. The only ground suggested in the decision was that ‘the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced.’ This ground was further hedged in by providing further that this may be done in the cases of grave nature involving questions of fact and law. It would mean that not only the charges must be grave but the case must involve complicated questions of law and fact. 18. It is well settled that the scope of disciplinary proceedings and the scope of criminal proceedings in a criminal Court are quite distinct, exclusive and independent of each other. Moreover the standards of proof as required in the criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings are not the same. 19. Whereas the object of the disciplinary proceedings are not only to punish the guilty but primarily to keep the administrative machinery unsullied by getting rid of bad elements. The purpose of criminal proceedings is quite different and that is to safeguard the public interest and to maintain public tranquility and order. 20. In a recent decision in the case of T.N.C.s. Corporation Ltd. v. K.Meerabai, 2006 SCC (L&S) 265, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the scope of disciplinary proceedings and the scope of criminal proceedings are quite distinct, exclusive and independent of each other. Standards of proof in these two proceedings are also different and therefore the disciplinary proceedings can safely be carried on, even during the pendency of the criminal proceedings. 21. Standards of proof in these two proceedings are also different and therefore the disciplinary proceedings can safely be carried on, even during the pendency of the criminal proceedings. 21. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at length, the learned Standing Counsel and having perused the material on record, I am of the opinion that the facts and circumstances in present case do not involve any complicated questions of fact and law and also because the petitioners have failed to disclose and spell out the exact prejudice which will be caused to them if the disciplinary proceedings as well criminal proceedings run together against them, as such the relief as sought by the petitioners deserves to be refused by this Court and is thus refused and rejected. The prayer for keeping the disciplinary proceedings in abeyance during the course of the criminal trial is not justified or liable to be granted. 22. The writ petition is dismissed as above. ———