Judgment :- Heard Mr. K. Raja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. Bhavani Subbaroyan, learned Additional Government Pleader representing the respondents and perused the records. 2. The petitioner was working as a Head Constable in Alangiam Police Station, Dharapuram Taluk, Erode District. The petitioner was involved in a criminal case for the offences under Sections 341, 294(B) and 506 (ii) I.P.C. A criminal case was registered against him in Crime No. 241/2007 at the Dharapuram Police Station for an incident that took place on 14. 1997. The allegation against him was that he was in a drunken stage and came to attack the complainant in a public place. Pursuant to the criminal case, he was placed under suspension and also a charge memo under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules [for short, TNPSS Rules] was framed and served on him. Thereafter, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and final report was also filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the charge memo was issued at the instance of the second respondent Inspector of Police, who was impleaded in his personal capacity. He also stated that when he was bedridden, he used to visit his house and at one such time, he made advances to his wife with sexual motives, which also came to be published in a Tamil News Magazine. In order to wreak vengeance, for such a news exposure, he has advanced monies and got a First Information Report registered. The cover page of the news magazine Tamilan Express dated 05. 2007 was also filed in the typed set of papers filed by the petitioner. While the incident against him is stated to have taken place on 14. 2007, the news report had been published only two weeks thereafter. In any event, it is a matter which will have to be pleaded by giving appropriate explanation by the petitioner and proved in the enquiry initiated against him. 4. However, Mr. K. Raja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that since the subject matter of the criminal case and the departmental enquiry arose out of the same transaction, the enquiry initiated against him should be deferred till the conclusion of the disciplinary action. 4. However, Mr. K. Raja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that since the subject matter of the criminal case and the departmental enquiry arose out of the same transaction, the enquiry initiated against him should be deferred till the conclusion of the disciplinary action. In support of this, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2006 (1) CTC 689 [Indian Overseas Bank and another v. P. Ganesan and others] and stated that similar relief should be granted to the petitioner also. 5. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, orders were reserved by this Court and it came to the notice of this Court that the Division Bench judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner has been overruled by the Supreme Court vide judgment dated 211. 2007 in Indian Overseas Bank and another v. P. Ganesan and others reported in 2008 (1) M.L.J. 37 and it is necessary to refer to paragraphs 22 and 23 of the said order, which are usefully extracted below: 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. 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 also the fact that the charge memo and criminal case are not identical, this Court is not persuaded to restrain the authorities from conducting departmental enquiry. It is for the petitioner to participate in the enquiry and prove his innocence. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. Interim stay already granted will stand vacated. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.