Judgment :- (This writ petitions filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to quash the order dt.12.2007, in Appeal in 14/07-08, OB 75/2007-08, passed by the R2, and at Ann-A, and the order dt.112.2007, passed by the R3, at Ann-A4, and the order dt.19.2008, in A.No.1184/08, passed by the Hon’ble Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore as per Ann-B.) P.D. Dinakaran, C.J. The writ petitioner is applicant in Application No.1184/2008 before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, where he prayed to quash the proceedings of Director General and Inspector General of Police, Karnataka State dated 12.2007 and consequentially, the charge memo dated 112.2007, whereunder, disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner who was working as Police Sub-Inspector of Arasikere Police Station, Pavagada Taluk, Tumkur District alleging that while he was working as Sub-Inspector of Police at Arasikere Police Station, during July 2006, he had demanded a sum of Rs.5,000/- to convert a case in favour of one Dudya Nayak and also received a sum of Rs.1,000/-. In that regard by the alleged act, he had committed offence under the provisions of Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. Accordingto the petitioner, a criminal case had already been filed against him in Crime No.6/2006 on the file of Shimoga Lokayuktha Police and he had also been charge-sheeted in the said case. A criminal case is also pending before the Special Judge, Shimoga in P.C.CR.No.2/2007. Contending that, the allegations, the complaint and the evidence as well as the charges relied upon by the State in the said case as well as in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner are one and the same and therefore, the respondents should not proceed with the disciplinary action the Tribunal by order dated 12.2007 disagreed with the contention of the petitioner and refused to quash the impugned action and also stay the departmental proceedings on the ground that criminal proceedings is still pending against the petitioner. Hence the present writ petition. 3. It is settled law that the standard of proof in a departmental proceedings and that in a criminal trial is different and there cannot be a straitjacket formula in the matter of granting stay of departmental proceedings. Hence the present writ petition. 3. It is settled law that the standard of proof in a departmental proceedings and that in a criminal trial is different and there cannot be a straitjacket formula in the matter of granting stay of departmental proceedings. There may be cases where the trial of case is prolonged by dilatory method adopted by the delinquent official and therefore, he cannot be permitted to, on one hand, prolong the criminal case and at the same time contend that disciplinary proceedings should be stayed on the ground that the criminal case is pending. 4. I Admittedly, in the instant case, the criminal case in Special P.C.No.2/2007 has been stayed by this Court at the instance of the petitioner himself in Criminal petition No.5020/2007 by order dated 211.2007. 4.2 As held by the Apex Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Sarvesh Berry reported in 2005 (10) SCC 471 the scope and object of departmental enquiry, particularly, in the matter of Prevention of Corruption is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. It would, therefore, be expedient that disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible. It is, therefore, not desirable to stay such departmental proceedings merely on the ground that a criminal case is pending. 4.3 In the instant case, the petitioner-delinquent himself obtained stay of trial. Therefore, as laid down by the Apex Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Sarvesh Berry, supra, criminal case and the departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously, as there is no bar for conducting the criminal and departmental proceedings simultaneously. 4. The ratio laid down by the Apex Court in CAPT. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharath Gold Mines Ltd. and Another reported in 1999 SCC (L&S) 810 is apt to be referred in this regard, which reads as hereunder: “22. (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 proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and 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. (ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and 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 any early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest.” 5. Applying the ration laid down in the said case, we are of the considered opinion that it may not be proper to stay the departmental proceedings in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5.1 Our view is also fortified by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Indian Oversear Bank, Annasalai & Another Vs. P. Ganeshan and others, reported in 2008 (12) SCC (L&S) 275, wherein, it is held as under: “18. ….. A Departmental proceedings pending a criminal proceedings does not warrant an automatic stay. The superior courts before exercising its discretionary jurisdiction in this regard must take into consideration the fact as to whether the charges as also the evidence in both the proceedings are common and as to whether any complicated question of law is involved in the matter.” We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.