JUDGMENT 1. The writ petitioner was an employee of erstwhile W.B.S.E.B. He was placed under suspension with effect from and by order dated 1st September, 2006 and a disciplinary proceeding was started against him. This was on the ground that he was caught red handed by the concerned authority in presence of the Executive Magistrate and other officials of the trap team while accepting a bribe of Rs. 5000/- as first instalment of the bribe money from one Sri Ananta Kumar Maity. A police case was started over this incident and the same under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is reportedly proceeding. 2. According to Mr. Bhattacharjee learned Counsel for the petitioner, there could be no mala fide intention on the part of the writ petitioner and the allegations made against him are baseless. Mr. Bhattcharjee submits that the disciplinary proceeding which has been started against the writ petitioner is continuing and its further continuation, will prejudice the writ petitioner. In such backdrop, it is submitted that a criminal case has also been started over similar, if not identical, allegations. 3. Mr. Bhattacharjee in support of his contention that this Court should not permit the disciplinary proceeding to proceed at this stage thereby causing prejudice to the writ petitioner and the disciplinary proceeding can very well be directed to be stayed till conclusion of the criminal trial. 4. In this context, he has derived inspiration from the decision in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. B.K. Meena & Ors., reported in AIR 1997 SC 13 . Mr. Bhattacharjee has further referred to the decision in the case of Amarendra Nath Pan vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in Cal LT 1989(1) HC 80 while submitting that it will be open for the respondent authority to proceed with a departmental proceeding even after the conclusion of the trial of the criminal case irrespective of its result. Further reference was made to the decision in the case of O.P. Gupta vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in AIR 1987 SC 2257 . 5. Mr. Bhattacharjee after analysing the factual backdrop of the present case categorically submits that continuation of the disciplinary proceeding simultaneously in the criminal trial over similar if not identical charges will certainly go a long way to cause prejudice to the writ petitioner. 6. In course of submission, Mr. 5. Mr. Bhattacharjee after analysing the factual backdrop of the present case categorically submits that continuation of the disciplinary proceeding simultaneously in the criminal trial over similar if not identical charges will certainly go a long way to cause prejudice to the writ petitioner. 6. In course of submission, Mr. Bhattacharjee further contends that the writ petitioner was placed under suspension as far back as in 2006 and his continuation as a suspended employee will certainly not be in the interest of the respondent company either. 7. In response to this, Mr. Panja appearing as learned Counsel for the respondent authority submits that the charges in the disciplinary proceeding and those in the criminal case cannot be said to be identical. 8. Mr. Panja also refers to the backdrop of the present case while submitting that the petitioner was consistent in his misdeeds and as such, a trap was laid which finally led to his arrest while taking bribe. According to Mr. Panja, this is a serious misconduct and in such a situation, this Court is not expected to unreasonably interfere with further proceeding of the disciplinary enquiry. In course of submission, Mr. Panja refer to the fact that a number of a prosecution witnesses have already been examined and the writ petitioner never raised any objection in this regard. At this critical juncture and that too, after about two years from being placed under suspension, the writ petitioner has indirectly raised the ground of ' prejudice'. 9. Mr. Panja has referred to the decision in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors. Vs. T. Srinivas, reported in AIR 2004 SC 4127 , in support of his contention that stay of disciplinary proceeding till conclusion of the criminal trial may not be a matter of course. This aspect is required to be determined. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of a case, reference has further been made to the decision in the case of Indian Overseas Bank, Annasalai & Anr. vs. P. Ganesan & Ors, reported in 2008(1) SCC 650 . 10. After giving due regard to the submissions made by learned Counsel, Mr. Bhattacharjee for the petitioner and Mr. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of a case, reference has further been made to the decision in the case of Indian Overseas Bank, Annasalai & Anr. vs. P. Ganesan & Ors, reported in 2008(1) SCC 650 . 10. After giving due regard to the submissions made by learned Counsel, Mr. Bhattacharjee for the petitioner and Mr. Panja for the respondent authority and having regard to the materials available on record, this Court is of the opinion that since the departmental proceeding has reportedly progressed to a significant extent, question of any prejudice to be caused to the writ petitioner can hardly arise. 11. Mr. Panja quite rightly submits that the writ petitioner submitted his show-cause in response to the direction given by the authority quite some time back and as such, the ground of, prejudice' should not be permitted to be raised at this belated stage. 12. The principles of law have been clearly laid down in the case of Capt. M. Pal Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., reported in 1999(3) SCC 679 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 810 and the same be summarised as follows: "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 the 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 chargesheet. (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. (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 an 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". 13. In the present case it is significant to mention that the writ petitioner was placed under suspension as far back as on 1st September, 2006 and the departmental proceeding has proceeded to a significant extent and as many as 10 witnesses have reportedly been examined. Naturally, the ground that the writ petitioner is likely to suffer from prejudice if the departmental proceeding is allowed to continue and conclude does not inspire the confidence of the Court. Nothing has been argued as to the present position of the criminal case. It is, however, admitted that the said criminal trial is pending. 14. Having regard to the factual backdrop of the present case as indicated hereinbefore, I do not think that there is any justification for passing an order of stay in respect of the departmental proceeding against the writ petitioner. In prayer (a) to the writ application, the writ petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondent/Bank to reinstate the petitioner. For the reasons as mentioned earlier, this clearly does not appear to be convincing at all. This is more so, in the backdrop of the fact that the disciplinary proceeding is the advanced stage. This Court also does not find any sufficient reason for directing the respondent authority not to give effect to the order to be passed in connection with the disciplinary proceeding. This would be hypothetical. 15. After due consideration of all relevant aspects and having regard to the peculiarity of the circumstances of the present case, this Court finds it difficult to appreciate the grievances as ventilated by Mr. Bhattacharjee on behalf of the petitioner. 16. This would be hypothetical. 15. After due consideration of all relevant aspects and having regard to the peculiarity of the circumstances of the present case, this Court finds it difficult to appreciate the grievances as ventilated by Mr. Bhattacharjee on behalf of the petitioner. 16. Accordingly, the present application, being W.P. No. 11223(W) of 2008, stands disposed of without any manner of interference. 17. There will, however, be no order as to costs. 18. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties expeditiously. Appeal disposed of.