Judgment :- Heard Mr. R. Sankarasubbu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. Bhavani Subbaroyan, learned Additional Government Pleader taking notice for the respondent and perused the records. 2. The petitioner in the present writ petition is seeking to challenge the departmental enquiry proceedings initiated against him and also appointment of Enquiry Officer by the impugned proceedings dated 18. 2007 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Armed Reserve, Chennai – 8. 3. A criminal case was registered against him in F.I.R. No. 27 of 2007 dated 17. 2007. The allegation against him was that while he was escorting certain accused from the Puzhal Prison to Government General Hospital, one accused, by name, Sundararajan, S/o Chinnasamy, was allowed to escape. He was also placed under suspension pending enquiry by an order dated 17. 2007 stating that his conduct in allowing the accused involved in a Narcotic case was reprehensible. Followed by this, a charge memo was also framed under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules [for short, TNPSS Rules]. While the criminal case relates to the complicity of the petitioner in allowing an accused with serious charges to escape, the charge memo was issued for his negligence towards his work. It was thereafter, an Enquiry Officer has been appointed for which the petitioner wrote a letter seeking the respondent to stall the enquiry proceedings pending the criminal action. As he did not get any reply, the present writ petition has been filed seeking for a direction to defer the disciplinary action pending the investigation in Crime No. 27 of 2007 on the file of the Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai. 4. Mr. Sankarasubbu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed strong reliance upon the following two decisions, viz., (1) 1988 (4) SCC 319 [Kusheshwar Dubey v. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. And others] and (ii) AIR 1999 SC 1416 [Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another]. He also brought to the notice of this Court the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Indian Overseas Bank and another v. P. Ganesan and others reported in 2006 (1) CTC 689 wherein the above two cases have been referred and followed. Therefore, on the strength of this, the learned counsel argued that the disciplinary action must be stayed. 5. Therefore, on the strength of this, the learned counsel argued that the disciplinary action must be stayed. 5. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, orders were reserved by this Court. But, after the orders were reserved, it is noted that the Division Bench judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner has been reversed by the Supreme Court in Indian Overseas Bank vs. P. Ganesan and others reported in 2008 (1) M.L.J. 37 and the passages found in paragraphs 22 and 23 may be usefully extracted: Para 22: "The High Court, unfortunately, although noticed some of the binding precedents of the Court failed to apply the law in its proper perspective. The High Court was not correct in its view in concluding that the stay of the departmental proceedings should be granted in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case without analyzing and applying the principle of law evolved in the aforementioned decisions. It, therefore, misdirected itself in law. What was necessary to be noticed by the High Court was not only existence of identical facts and the evidence in the matter, it was also required to take into consideration the question as to whether the charges levelled against the delinquent officers, both in the criminal case as also the disciplinary proceedings, were same. Furthermore, it was obligatory on the part of the High Court to arrive at a finding that the non-staying (sic) of the disciplinary proceedings shall not only prejudice the delinquent officers but also the matter involves a complicated question of law. Para 23: The standard of proof in a disciplinary proceedings and that in a criminal trial is different. If there are additional charges against the delinquent officers including the charges of damaging the property belonging to the bank which was not the subject matter of allegations in a criminal case, the departmental proceedings should not have been stayed." 6. In the light of the above and since the charges framed in the disciplinary action as well as in the criminal case are different, this Court is not persuaded to restrain the disciplinary action being proceeded with. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.