JUDGMENT : B.S. Chauhan C.J. 1. This Writ Petition has been filed for quashing the Order Dated 3.7.2008 (Annex-5) passed by the Enquiry Officer rejecting the application for stay of departmental proceedings till disposal of criminal case. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the case are that the Petitioner, who is a process server in the Court of S.D.J.M., Chhatrapur had been served a charge sheet dated 2 9.9.2007 by the District Judge, Ganjam-Gajapati, Berhampur containing four charges. Charge No. 1 is that Petitioner appeared before Sri Bijaya Kumar Patra, Sheristadar in-charge of the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Chatrapur at about 5.30 P.M. on 13.7.2007 in a state of intoxication and abused him in filthy language, caught hold his neck, mishandled with him and torned his shirt as a result Bijaya Kumar Patra fell down. Petitioner intimidated Shri Patra and threatened to kill him when he would go outside. 3. Charge No. II relates to for not serving notices handed over to the Petitioner, 64 in number to be served upon the concerned parties pertaining to I.R.E. Beat on 9.7.2007 returnable by 21.7.2007. 4. Charge No. III related to the fact that the Petitioner remained absent without submitting leave applications. 5. Charge No. IV related to submitting of leave applications from time to time and leaving the headquarter without waiting for the sanction of the leave and going out without furnishing the address as a result of which no official correspondence could be made with him. Notice dated 20.8.2007 could not be served upon him, thus it was published in the daily newspaper 'Anupam Bharat' on 22.8.2007 which incurred unnecessary expenses on the State Exchequer. 6. In respect of the first charge i.e. incident dated 13.7.2007, criminal prosecution has also been launched against the Petitioner in G.R. Case No. 242 of 2007, which is pending consideration before the competent Criminal Court. 7. In view of the above, the Petitioner submitted an application before the Enquiry Officer to adjourn the proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal trial which has been rejected by the impugned order. Hence this petition. 8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that law does not permit continuation of Disciplinary Proceedings and the criminal trial simultaneously on the same facts and charges. Petitioner cannot be forced to disclose his defence in such proceedings as it would prejudice his case in criminal trial. Hence this petition. 8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that law does not permit continuation of Disciplinary Proceedings and the criminal trial simultaneously on the same facts and charges. Petitioner cannot be forced to disclose his defence in such proceedings as it would prejudice his case in criminal trial. Therefore, the Disciplinary Proceedings have to be stayed. 9. On the other hand, Mr. P.K. Khuntia, Learned Addl. Government Advocate has submitted that in Disciplinary Proceedings, there are four charges against the Petitioner and each of them are of serious nature. Remaining absent without any leave is vital. He had proceeded without waiting for the sanction of his leave, without furnishing his address and thus no notice could be served upon him. Therefore, publication in the newspaper had to be made for calling him back which incurred huge expenses on public exchequer. More so, the above criminal case is of not such complicated nature that Departmental Proceeding should be stayed. Therefore, the petition is liable to be rejected. 10. We have considered the rival submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. It is settled legal proposition that there is no prohibition for holding Disciplinary Proceedings simultaneously with the criminal trial for the reason that in a criminal case, standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt, while in a domestic enquiry, standard of proof for proving the charges is probability of preponderances. There is no bar even to hold enquiry after acquittal of delinquent in a criminal case. (Vide Nelson Motis Vs. Union of India and another, ; State of Karnataka and Another Vs. T. Venkataramanappa, ; Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Pathanamthitta and Others Vs. A. Gopalan, ; State of AP v. K. Allabakash; Ajit Kumar Nag Vs. General Manager (P.J.), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Haldia and Others, ; and Union of India and Ors. v. Naman Singh Sekhawat AIR 2008 SCW 2813 . 12. In State of Rajasthan Vs. T. Venkataramanappa, ; Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Pathanamthitta and Others Vs. A. Gopalan, ; State of AP v. K. Allabakash; Ajit Kumar Nag Vs. General Manager (P.J.), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Haldia and Others, ; and Union of India and Ors. v. Naman Singh Sekhawat AIR 2008 SCW 2813 . 12. In State of Rajasthan Vs. B.K. Meena and others the Apex Court considering the issue as to whether domestic enquiry can be simultaneously held with the criminal trial observed as under: 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 only ground suggested in the above decisions as constituting a valid 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 further that this may be done In cases of grave nature involving 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.... One of the contending considerations is that 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 or persons holding high public offices are involved. They get bogged down on one or the other ground. They hardly ever reach a prompt conclusion.... 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 interests of administration demand that undesirable elements are thrown out and any charge of misdemeanour is enquired into promptly. The interests of administration and good government demand that these proceedings are concluded expeditiously. It must be remembered that interests 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 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 according to law. It is not also in the interest of administration that persons accused of serious misdemeanour should be continued in office indefinitely, i.e., for long periods awaiting the result of criminal proceedings. It is not in the interest of administration. It only serves the interest of the guilty and dishonest... 13. In Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Another, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there can be no bar for continuing both the proceedings simultaneously. The Court placed reliance upon large number of its earlier Judgments, including The Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. Vs. Kushal Bhan, ; Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Its Workmen, ; Jang Bahadur Singh Vs. Baij Nath Tiwari, ; Kusheshwar Dubey Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Others, ; Nelson Motis (Supra); and B.K. Meena (Supra), and held that proceedings in a criminal case and departmental proceedings can be held simultaneously except where both the proceedings are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common. In departmental proceedings, factors prevailing in the mind of the disciplinary authority may be many, such as enforcement of discipline or to investigate level of integrity of delinquent or other staff. The standard of proof required in those proceedings is also different from that required in a criminal case. While in departmental proceedings, the standard of proof is one of preponderance of probabilities, in a criminal case, the charge has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Where the charge against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it is desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till conclusion of the criminal case. Where the charge against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it is desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till conclusion of the criminal case. Where the nature of charge in a criminal case is grave and wherein complicated questions of fact and law are involved, will depend upon the nature of the defence, 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. In case the criminal case does not proceed expeditiously, the departmental proceedings cannot be kept in abeyance for ever and may be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude the same at the early date. The purpose is that if the employee is found not guilty his cause may be vindictive, and in case he is found guilty, administration may get rid of him at the earliest. 14. In State Bank of India and Others Vs. R.B. Sharma, same view has been reiterated observing that both proceedings can be held simultaneously, except where departmental proceedings in criminal case are based on same set of facts and evidence in both the proceedings is common. The Court observed as under: The purpose of departmental inquiry and of prosecution are to put a distinct aspect. Criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of 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 a public duty. The departmental inquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. 15. While deciding the said case a very heavy reliance has been placed upon the earlier Judgment of the Supreme Court in Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Mohd. Yousuf Miya, etc. wherein it has been held that both proceedings can be held simultaneously unless the gravity of the charges demand staying the disciplinary proceedings till the trial is concluded as the complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case. 16. A similar view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others Vs. T. Srinivas. 16. A similar view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others Vs. T. Srinivas. A Three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Management of Krishnakali Tea Estate Vs. Akhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor Sangh and Another, reconsidered all earlier Judgments and reiterated the same view, as the approach and the objective of the criminal proceedings, and the disciplinary proceedings are distinct and different. There can be no bar in carrying on the criminal trial and criminal proceedings simultaneously. 17. In Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Ors. v. Sarvesh Berry AIR 2005 SC 1408; Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Vs. Narender Singh, ; and Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Ram Sajivan (2007) 9 SCC 86 ; the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there is no prohibition for holding Disciplinary Proceeding simultaneously with the criminal trial, except in some cases where both the proceedings are based on same facts and evidence in both the proceedings as common. However, it will depend upon the facts of each case where simultaneous continuation of both the proceedings would be proper. However, in a case where the charges are more grave and facts are very complicated, it may be desirable to keep the Disciplinary Proceedings in abeyance till the conclusion of the trial. 18. Therefore, in view of the above, law can be summarised that there is no prohibition continuing both the proceedings simultaneously however, Disciplinary Proceedings may in a appropriate case be kept in abeyance where the same are exclusively based on the incident on which the delinquent is facing the criminal trial and in respect of the both the proceedings the evidence is the same. Charge framed against the delinquent is of very grave nature and the case involves complicated question of facts and law. 19. In Chandi Prasad Das v. State of Orissa and Ors. 1998 (1) OLR 474; a Division Bench of this Court stayed Departmental Proceedings during the pendency of the criminal trial recording the findings of fact that criminal case involved very complicated as the delinquent officer was facing charge of illegally acquiring or possessing assets disproportionate to his known source of income . and the Departmental Proceeding had been initiated in view of the fact that criminal case had been launched against him. and the Departmental Proceeding had been initiated in view of the fact that criminal case had been launched against him. Considering the seriousness of the charges and gravity thereof, the Court came to the conclusion that as the charge in both the cases is same and the evidence are also the same, and Departmental Proceedings had been based on criminal case itself, it was desirable that the Disciplinary Proceedings be stayed till the conclusion of the criminal trial. 20. In the instant case, admittedly the criminal trial is not on the same charge as involved in the Disciplinary Proceedings. In the Departmental Proceedings, four charges have been levelled against the Petitioner only one out of the said charges is pending before the criminal Court. Therefore, it cannot be held that both the proceedings are based on the same allegations and evidence is the same. Three other remaining charges in the Departmental Proceedings are also of serious nature wherein allegations have been made regarding the absence from office without leave not serving as a Process Server properly; not serving summons in 64 cases causing serious problem to the Court as the matter related to I.R.E. Beat on 9.7.2007 returnable by 21.7.2007. Petitioner remained absent from duty without furnishing, any address, and he could not be served. Therefore, he had to be informed through publication in the local newspaper having wide circulation, which incurred huge loss to the public exchequer. Inquiry was being proceeded ex parte as the Petitioner did not appear before the Inquiry Officer in spite of the notice. Nine witnesses had already been examined and it was at that stage, the delinquent entered appearance. 21. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner could not furnish any explanation under what circumstances he did not co-operate with the enquiry prior to passing of the Order Dated 3.7.2008. The conduct of the Petitioner itself shows that he want to prolong the Disciplinary Proceedings. Criminal case itself does not involves complicated questions of fact and law nor it is of a very grave nature. Thus, it is not a fit case where the Disciplinary Proceedings should be stayed till the conclusion of the trial of criminal case which has not yet commenced. The petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. B.N. Mahapatra, J. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed