J U D G M E N T [Per A.H. Joshi, J]: 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Respective Advocates waive service. 2. Hence Petition is called for hearing, as the petition can be heard and disposed of as a short question of law is involved. 3. Petitioner herein, who is an employee of respondent no.3, is facing a Departmental Enquiry, as well is undergoing trial under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 4. In this petition, the petitioner is claiming that the proceedings of Departmental Enquiry need to be stayed/suspended until conclusion of the criminal trial against him. The reason thereto assigned by the petitioner like in similar claims is that:- [a] The substratum and factual matrix in both proceedings, i.e., Departmental Enquiry and the case in the Criminal Court is one and the same. [b] The employer desires to adduce evidence against the petitioner on a set of witnesses, who as well are the witnesses, are cited in criminal proceedings. [c] If the same witnesses are examined in Departmental Enquiry by the employer and cross-examined by the petitioner, it will thereby result in totally exposing his defence.., and this shall prejudice his defence in criminal trial. [d] The law as regards progress or stay of Departmental Enquiries during pendency of a criminal case is well-settled, and the petitioner claims that the enquiry needs to be stayed. 5. In support of his contentions, petitioner has placed reliance on following reported rulings of Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of:- [1] Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & ors. Vs. T. Srinivas [ (2004) 7 SCC 442 ], [2] State Bank of India & ors. Vs. R.B. Sharma [ AIR 2004 SC 4144 ], and [3] Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & ors. Vs. Sarvesh Berry [ (2005) 10 SCC 471 ]. 6. Petition is opposed by respondent nos. 2 to 4 urging that:- [i] In disciplinary proceedings, the question is whether the employee is guilty of such conduct as would merit his removal from service or a lesser punishment, as the case may be, whereas in the criminal proceedings the question is whether the offences registered against him are established, what sentence should be imposed on him. [ii] The standard of proof, the mode of inquiry and the rules governing the Departmental Enquiry and trial are different and distinct. [ii] The standard of proof, the mode of inquiry and the rules governing the Departmental Enquiry and trial are different and distinct. [iii] In the present case, the petitioner has already participated in the disciplinary proceedings and submitted his Statement of Defence, and hence the question of any prejudice to him does not arise. [iv] After submitting the reply, the petitioner is simply trying to protract the proceedings on one pretext or the other. [v] The criminal prosecutions take years together to reach finality. The management cannot be denied the right to hold departmental inquiry and punish the delinquent employee, if the charges are proved against him in the Departmental Enquiry. 7. The Management has also placed reliance on the same set of Judgments relied upon by the petitioner. 8. The position of law is amply clear and rediscussion thereof would mean spending time, and space in this order too. 9. However, in view that the issue is being agitated, re-agitated and continued to be agitated with articulation, it becomes necessary to differentiate once again the objectives and goals on which the Departmental Enquiry and criminal trial proceed. 10. Factors of difference between the two, the Departmental Enquiry and Criminal Trial, are noted below in a tabulated form:- Departmental Criminal Case Enquiry. 1. Misconduct is 1. Rules of conduct vis-a-vis rules of against society, conduct in employment violation whereof either prescribed is provided by law with by conditions of a penal consequence service, which is in the statutory or non- nature of a sanction statutory. which could be Consequences of corporal or breach are as incorporal. provided by the service rules, such as minor or major penalties, prescribed and provided therein. 2. Standard of proof 2. Primary duty on the required is to raise prosecution is to preponderance of prove proof of facts probabilities. to the hilt, to the strict compliance of statutory requirements and hence the nature and standard of proof is strict. 11. The above differentiating factors are clear and well recognized even since time prior to the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. [ (1996) 6 SCC 417 ], and have been relied upon and reiterated in all subsequent judgments. 12. 11. The above differentiating factors are clear and well recognized even since time prior to the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. [ (1996) 6 SCC 417 ], and have been relied upon and reiterated in all subsequent judgments. 12. As in the present case, whether the conduct of an employee is a misconduct in the employment, though based upon the allegation of demanding the bribe, is a very simple matter, while the statutory requirements as laid down in the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act as elucidated and explained in various judgments are to be complied with by the prosecution in the criminal trial. The task to be performed in the process of Departmental Enquiry is comparatively simple. 13. The Petitioner's apprehension that his defence in criminal trial will be prejudiced is without any foundation, as the Petitioner has already filed his Defence Statement in Departmental Enquiry proceeding. 14. In these premises, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for grant of stay to the departmental enquiry proceedings pending a decision of the criminal trial, having regard to the law laid down in the following cases by the Apex Court:- [1] Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & ors. Vs. T. Srinivas [ (2004) 7 SCC 442 ], and [3] Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & ors. Vs. Sarvesh Berry [ (2005) 10 SCC 471 ]. 15. In the circumstances, Petition has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. In the circumstances, parties shall bear their own costs.