Judgment ( 1. ) THE petitioner was appointed as Testing Assistant Grade-II in the year 1978. He was promoted to the post of Testing Assistant Grade I in the year 1994. While he was continuing in the said post he was arrested on 12-3-2001 and remained in custody till 10-1-2002 in respect of two criminal cases. The criminal case was founded on the allegation when one Mr. Bhargav, after withdrawing the amount of Rs. 61,000/- from M. P. Rajya Sahakari Maryadit Bank, Jabalpur was proceeding to Nayagaon, three persons came on motorcycle and snatched away the bag in which he was carrying the amount. On an FIR being lodged, investigation was carried out and the petitioner was arrayed as an accused in respect of an offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC. It is also borne out of material on record a case under Section 394 of IPC was initiated against the petitioner. ( 2. ) DURING the pendency of the criminal case a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner in respect of two charges. The petitioner submitted his reply on 5-6-2001 vide Annexure P-3 and demanded certain documents which were mentioned in the list of documents attached to the charge-sheet. The documents were supplied to him as per memorandum dated 20-4-2004. Thereafter the petitioner vide letter dated 27-4-2004, annexure P-5 was asked to submit information regarding the criminal cases initiated against him. It is averred that on the same date one G. P. Jaiswal, E. E. , mpseb was appointed as Inquiry Officer and one Mr. Dhirendra Singh, Asstt. Engineer was appointed as Presenting Officer. The petitioner vide letter dated 8-5-2004 submitted the information regarding the status of the criminal cases instituted against him. The petitioner also informed that one case has already been decided resulting in his acquittal and in other two cases which are the subject matter of Criminal Case Nos. 50/2001 and 1005/2001 prosecution witnesses have already been examined and cross-examined and they are at verge of decision. ( 3. ) ACCORDING to the writ petitioner, despite the aforesaid information given by him on 1-11-2004 vide Annexure P-8 he was informed to attend the departmental enquiry on 18-11-04. He attended the enquiry and requested for assistance of defence representative to defend him in the departmental inquiry. ( 3. ) ACCORDING to the writ petitioner, despite the aforesaid information given by him on 1-11-2004 vide Annexure P-8 he was informed to attend the departmental enquiry on 18-11-04. He attended the enquiry and requested for assistance of defence representative to defend him in the departmental inquiry. On the basis of the said prayer, inquiry was adjourned to 7-12-2004 and the petitioner was required to submit the name of the representative. On 3-12-04 vide Annexure P-10 the petitioner entered into correspondence with the respondent No. 2 stating that two criminal cases pending against him were in the verge of decision and hence, the department would be well advised to await for the verdict in the criminal cases before proceeding further in the departmental inquiry. It is contended that in the departmental inquiry two charges were levelled against him and the said charges were identical in nature in respect of which the criminal cases were pending. It is urged that the charges in the departmental inquiry are identical and based on same set of facts and evidence would be required to be adduced and hence, it should be kept in abeyance till the criminal cases are decided. Despite the aforesaid request the inquiry was not stayed. ( 4. ) IT is urged in the petition that Criminal Case No. 50/01 was initiated for an offence punishable under Section 394 of IPC in which all the witnesses have been examined and Criminal Case No. 1005/01 instituted for offence punishable under Section 392/34 of IPC and the prosecution has almost closed its case. It is the stand in the writ petition that when the charges in the criminal cases are similar to the charges that have been levelled against him in the departmental proceeding, the department should have awaited for the verdict in the criminal cases. It is the stance that the list of documents on which the respondents have placed reliance upon in the departmental inquiry relate to the two incidents in respect of which the petitioner is facing criminal charges. It is highlighted that under these circumstances, the petitioner had challenged the initiation of departmental proceeding and its continuance in Writ Petition No. 1318/05 before this Court wherein this Court without interfering directed if the petitioner prayed for stay of the departmental proceeding, the same shall be considered by the respondents at the first instance. It is highlighted that under these circumstances, the petitioner had challenged the initiation of departmental proceeding and its continuance in Writ Petition No. 1318/05 before this Court wherein this Court without interfering directed if the petitioner prayed for stay of the departmental proceeding, the same shall be considered by the respondents at the first instance. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed an application before the authorities to keep the departmental proceeding in abeyance but despite that the departmental proceeding continued. ( 5. ) IT is averred that as the departmental inquiry and criminal cases are based on self same charges and evidence are common, the departmental inquiry is bound to be kept in abeyance till the decision in the criminal cases and as the same has not been done and departmental proceeding has been allowed to continue it would cause immense prejudice to the petitioner and, therefore, a writ of certiorari should be issued to quash the charge-sheet and further a writ of mandamus be issued restraining the respondents not to proceed further in the departmental inquiry. ( 6. ) A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents contending, inter alia, that the charges in the departmental proceeding and in the criminal cases are distinct and separate. It is put forth that on 7-2-01 the petitioner along with others had looted one old lady and in another incident on 28-2-01 he along with three unsocial elements looted Rs. 61,000/- from another employee, namely, Shri Bhargav by using a country made pistol. The charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on above two cases as the image of the Electricity Board has been tarnished and conduct of the petitioner was unbecoming of an employee of the Board. It is the stand in the return that the respondents had not suddenly decided to proceed further in the departmental enquiry. It is urged that petitioner along with three others has looted Rs. It is the stand in the return that the respondents had not suddenly decided to proceed further in the departmental enquiry. It is urged that petitioner along with three others has looted Rs. 61,000/- from Shri Bhargav and said Shri Bhargav instituted a Writ Petition No. 5/03 wherein this Court on 27-11-03 had directed that if the recovery has not made from Shri A. K. Kahar since Kahar is also involved in criminal case, MPSEB would be well advised to take action against Kahar who is also responsible and in case the recovery is not possible from Kahar and the petitioner therein is found to be negligent or guilty of any misconduct obviously recovery can also be made from him in accordance with the law. After the said order was passed the respondents proceeded for departmental inquiry which had already been initiated. It is the stand of the respondents that the petitioner had already filed his reply to the charge-sheet and number of witnesses have been examined and, therefore, question of disclosure of defence does not arise at this stage. It is also put forth that as in the criminal prosecution witnesses have been examined and in the verge of completion, there is no question of prejudice being caused to the petitioner. 6. I have heard Mr. A. K. Soni, learned Counsel for the petitioner and mr. Vivek Rusia, learned Counsel for the respondents. ( 7. ) THE solitary question that emerges for consideration in this writ petition is whether the departmental enquiry should be kept in abeyance at this juncture. To appreciate the factual matrix it is appropriate to refer to the two charges framed against the petitioner. The English translation of the same reads as under:- "charge No. 1: (That Mr. Ashok Kumar Kahar Testing Assistant grade-I, SE (Sub-station) Division, Jabalpur is working since 29-1-96 as Testing Asstt. Gr.-1 and posted in 132 KV Sub-station, mpseb Maneri) You along with outsider antisocial elements viz. Babloo Md. Tahir and Noushad on 7-2-01 in Gwarighat Road, has robbed one old aged lady. Due to said involvement in said criminal incidence the image of Board has been damaged and Ashok Kumar kahar became liable for departmental enquiry under MP Civil service (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. Charge No. 2 : (That Mr. Babloo Md. Tahir and Noushad on 7-2-01 in Gwarighat Road, has robbed one old aged lady. Due to said involvement in said criminal incidence the image of Board has been damaged and Ashok Kumar kahar became liable for departmental enquiry under MP Civil service (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. Charge No. 2 : (That Mr. Ashok Kumar Kahar Testing Assistant grade-I, O/o SE (Sub-station) Division, Jabalpur while working on the post of Testing Asstt. Gr. I and posted in 132 KV Sub-station, mpseb Maneri since 29-1-96 ). You along with outsider antisocial elements viz. Mohd. Tahir, Raju @ Shamim and Rashid on 28-2-01 at 1:15 in motorcycle rubbed Rs. 61,000/- (cash) by putting country made pistol (Katta ). Shri A. K. Bhargav Asst. Eng. (TBPS) 132 KV. Sub-station MPEB Maneri while he was carrying salary of month of February, 2000 of department employee from bank to Divisional office situated at Nayagaon, Jabalpur. " The charges that have been framed by the learned Trial Judge against the petitioner in the criminal cases are follows:- "that, on or about the 28th day of February, 2001 you committed robbery of Rs. 61,000/- which was in possession of Arun Kumar bhargav and which you robbed him in Bargi Hills Main Road, Near water Tank at 13 : 30 and here by committed an offence under section 392 of Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance and I hereby direct that you be tried on the said charge. That you on 7th February, 2001 at about 3-4 p. m. robbed God jewelry amounting Rs. 80,000/- from Shri Sulochana Anthaiya, R/o bose Colony, Gwarighat Road, Jabalpur and also voluntarily cause injury to her and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 394, IPC and within my cognizance and I hereby direct that you be tried on the said charge. " 7 A. Mr. Soni, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when the charges are similar the respondents should restrain themselves from proceeding in the departmental inquiry. ( 8. ) TO appreciate the factual scenario in proper perspective it is apposite to refer to certain decisions in the field. In the case of Kusheshawar ] dubey Vs. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and another, AIR 1988 SC 2118 , j wherein after referring to the cases of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. Vs. ( 8. ) TO appreciate the factual scenario in proper perspective it is apposite to refer to certain decisions in the field. In the case of Kusheshawar ] dubey Vs. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and another, AIR 1988 SC 2118 , j wherein after referring to the cases of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. Vs. Kushan Bhan, AIR 1960 SC 806 , Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Its Workmen, AIR 1965 SC 155 and Jong Bahadur Singh Vs. Baijnath Tiwari, AIR 1969 SC 30 , the apex Court came to hold as under:- "6. The view expressed in the three cases of this Court seem to support the position that while there could be no legal bar for simultaneous proceedings being taken, yet, there may be cases where it would be appropriate to defer disciplinary proceedings awaiting disposal of the criminal case. In the latter class of cases it would be open to the delinquent employee to seek such an order of stay or injunction from the Court. Whether in the facts and circumstances of a particular case there should or should not be such simultaneity of the proceedings would then receive judicial consideration and the Court will decide in the given circumstances of a particular case as to whether the disciplinary proceedings should be interdicted, pending criminal trial. As we have already stated that it is neither possible nor advisable to evolve a hard and fast, straight-jacket formula valid for all cases and of general application without regard to the particularities of the individual situation. For the disposal of the present case, we do not think it necessary to say anything more, particularly when we do not intend to lay down any general guideline. 7. In the instant case the criminal action and the disciplinary proceedings are grounded upon the same set of facts. We are of the view that the disciplinary proceedings should have been stayed and the High Court was not right in interfering with the Trial courts order of injunction which had been affirmed in appeal. " ( 9. ) IT is worth while to refer to the decision rendered in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. B. K. Meena, (1996) 6 SCC 417 , wherein the Apex Court expressed the view as under:-14. " ( 9. ) IT is worth while to refer to the decision rendered in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. B. K. Meena, (1996) 6 SCC 417 , wherein the Apex Court expressed the view as under:-14. It would be evident from the above decisions that each of them starts with the indisputable proposition that there is no legal bar for both proceedings to go on simultaneously and then say that in certain situations, it may not be desirable, advisable or appropriate to proceed with the disciplinary enquiry when a criminal case is pending on identical charges. The staying of disciplinary proceedings, it is emphasised, is a matter to be determined having regard to the facts and circumstances of a given case and that no hard and fast rules can be enunciated in that behalf. The only ground for staying the disciplinary proceedings is that the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced. This ground has, however, been hedged in by providing questions of fact and law. In our respectful opinion, it means that not only the charges must be grave but that the case must involve complicated questions of law and fact. Moreover, advisability, desirability, or propriety, as the case may be, has to be determined in each case taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case. The ground indicated in DCM and Tata Oil Mills is also not an invariable rule, it is only a factor which will go into the scales while judging the advisability or desirability of staying the disciplinary enquiry cannot be and should not be delayed unduly. So far as criminal cases are concerned, it is well known that they drag on endlessly where high officials are persons holding high public offices are involved. They get bogged down on one or the other ground. They hardly even reach a prompt conclusion. That is the reality in spite of repeated advice and admonitions from this Court and the High Courts. If a criminal case is unduly delayed that may itself be a good ground for going ahead with the disciplinary enquiry even where the disciplinary proceedings are held over at an earlier stage. The interests of administration and good Government demand that these proceedings are concluded expeditiously. If a criminal case is unduly delayed that may itself be a good ground for going ahead with the disciplinary enquiry even where the disciplinary proceedings are held over at an earlier stage. The interests of administration and good Government demand that these proceedings are concluded expeditiously. It must be remembered that interest of administration demand that undesirable elements are thrown out and any charge of misdemeanour is enquired into promptly. The disciplinary proceedings are meant not really to punish the guilty but to keep the administrative machinery unsullied by getting rid of bad elements. The interest of the delinquent officer also lies in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. If he is not guilty of the charges, his honour should be vindicated at the earliest possible moment and if he is guilty, he should be dealt with promptly accordingly to law. It is not also in the interest of administration that person accused of serious misdemeanour should be continued in office indefinitely, i. e. , for long in the interest of administration. It only serves the interest of guilty and dishonest. While it is not possible to enumerate the various factors for and again the stay of disciplinary proceedings, we found it necessary to emphasise of the important considerations in view of the fact that very often the disciplinary proceedings are being stayed for long period pending criminal proceedings. 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 decisions referred to above. " ( 10. ) A Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Depot manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Mohd. Yosuf miya Etc. , (1997) 2 SCC 699 , opined that the purpose of departmental enquiry and prosecution is different and cover distinct aspects. It was expressed by Their lordships that if the criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of a duty, the offender owes to the society for breach of which law has booked him where as in contradistinction a departmental enquiry is initiated to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. In that context, their Lordships opined each case requires to be considered in the backdrop of its own facts and circumstances. In that context, their Lordships opined each case requires to be considered in the backdrop of its own facts and circumstances. Eventually the Apex Court laid down the dictum as under:- ". . . . . The nature of evidence in criminal trial is entirely different from the departmental proceedings. In the former, prosecution is to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the touchstone of human conduct. The standard of proof in the departmental proceedings is not the same as the criminal trial. The evidence required in the departmental inquiry is not regulated by the evidence Act. 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 upon its own facts and circumstances. In this case, we have seen that the charge is failure to anticipate the accident and prevention thereof. . . . . " ( 11. ) IN State Bank of India and others Vs. R. B. Sharma, AIR 2004 SC 4144 , a two Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Paragraph 8 has laid down as under:- "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. 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. 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 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 of 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 excircumstances, 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. " ( 12. ) IT is worthnoting here that in the aforesaid case Their Lordships referred to the decision rendered in the case of Captain M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. , AIR 1999 SC 1416 , to indicate the fact situations which would govern the question whether departmental proceedings should be kept in abeyance. It is profitable to reproduce Paragraph 11 of the decision rendered in the case of R. B. Sharma (supra):- "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 summarized. 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. In Paragraph 22 conclusions which are deducible from various decisions were summarized. 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 proceeding 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 (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 is honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest. " ( 13. ) THE obtaining factual matrix is to be tested on the anvil and touch-stone of the aforesaid pronouncement of law. As has been held by the Apex court, there cannot be a straight-jacket formula as to in which case departmental proceedings are to be stayed. In the case at hand, as has been stated by the petitioner, the criminal cases are on the verge of completion. He has admitted that in one case the prosecution has closed its evidence. That apart there has been considerable progress in the departmental-proceeding. The acid and real test is whether the departmental inquiry would cause prejudice to the petitioner in criminal case at this stage. He has admitted that in one case the prosecution has closed its evidence. That apart there has been considerable progress in the departmental-proceeding. The acid and real test is whether the departmental inquiry would cause prejudice to the petitioner in criminal case at this stage. As the factual matrix would luminescently reveal, the criminal cases are almost in the verge of completion and there is progress in the departmental proceeding. In this backdrop, there is no question of prejudice being caused to the delinquent employee in his defence at the trial in criminal case. ( 14. ) IN view of the aforesaid premises, I do not perceive any substance in the writ petition and the inevitable result is dismissal, which I direct. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Writ Petition dismissed.