ORDER The petitioner is has been served with a charge under Rule 17-b of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, dated 2.1.2009 for an allegation of receipt of illegal gratification of Rs. 3,000/-. He has filed the present writ petition to quash the charges in view of the pendency of the criminal case in C.C. No. 8 of 2005 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram. 2. On 24.9.2004, the petitioner was arrested by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department and a criminal case was registered against him. It is the case of the petitioner that a sum of Rs. 3,000/-, the alleged illegal gratification was recovered from the pocket of Mr. Nagarathinam, a Village Assistant who is the accused No. 2 in the above said criminal case. The alleged demand and acceptance is only by the Village Assistant and the petitioner has no connection whatsoever to the said allegation. In order to escape from the clutches of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, the said Village Assistant has falsely implicated the petitioner. Investigation has been completed by the police and the charge sheet has also been filed. The investigation of the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal case founded on the same set of facts is illegal. As the offence involves question of law, the respondents are awaiting the outcome of the decision in C.C. No. 8 of 2005 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram. If the petitioner discloses his defence as to how the complainant Mr. P.A. Karuppaiah is aggrieved in the discharge of the petitioner's official duty and how he is having grudge against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings, the exposure of his defence in the departmental enquiry would certainly affect the criminal case. Therefore, he has sought for a certiorari to quash the departmental proceedings. 3. The Collector, Ramanathapuram, in his counter affidavit has submitted that on 23.9.2004, when the petitioner was working as Tahsildar, Rameshwaram, he had demanded bribe of Rs. 5,000/- from one Mr. P.A. Karuppiah to permit him to rear fish in the ponds dug in the poramboke lands enjoyed by him. The Tahsildar, Rameshwaram inspected the said land and instructed the party to come and meet him. When the party met the Tahsildar at his quarters on 18.9.2004, the Tahsildar demanded a bribe of Rs. 5,000/- from one Mr. P.A. Karuppiah to permit him to rear fish in the ponds dug in the poramboke lands enjoyed by him. The Tahsildar, Rameshwaram inspected the said land and instructed the party to come and meet him. When the party met the Tahsildar at his quarters on 18.9.2004, the Tahsildar demanded a bribe of Rs. 10,000/- to permit him to continue fish rearing in the Government land. The said Mr. P.A. Karuppiah again met the Tahsildar in his quarters along with one Mr. Ayyasamy on 22.9.2004. The Tahsildar agreed to reduce the bribe money to Rs. 5,000/- and asked the party to hand over the money to Mr. S. Nagarethinam, Village Assistant, Rameshwaram who would be visiting the party's house on 24.9.2004 morning. In the meanwhile, Mr. P.A. Karuppiah approached the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing Ramanathapuram on 23.9.2004 and complained against the Tahsildar about the demand of bribe. A case was registered in Crime No. 4 of 2004 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Ramanathapuram and a trap was organised. Two official witnesses were arranged for the trap. About 9.15 hours on 24.9.2004 Mr. S. Nagarethinam, Village Assistant came to the house of the complainant Mr. P.A. Karuppiah and demanded the money. The party handed over the phenolphthalein tainted currency notes of Rs. 3,000/- to Mr.S.Nagarethinam. He was caught red handed in the presence of the official witnesses and was arrested by Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department. Later on, the Tahsildar Rameshwaram was also arrested for having demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs. 3,000/- through the Village Assistant. Pursuant to the same, they were placed under suspension on 25.9.2004 and subsequently they were reinstated in service. The Criminal Case registered against the petitioner by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption is under trial before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram. 4. The respondent has denied the contention that the petitioner was not involved in the bribe and was falsely implicated. It is submitted that the money was given to Mr. S. Nagarethinam, Village Assistant on the prior demand made by the petitioner and as per the directions given by him. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner not only demanded bribe but also accepted the same through the village Assistant. 5. It is submitted that the money was given to Mr. S. Nagarethinam, Village Assistant on the prior demand made by the petitioner and as per the directions given by him. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner not only demanded bribe but also accepted the same through the village Assistant. 5. It is further submitted that the District Collector being the disciplinary authority has framed charges against the petitioner under Rule 17-b of the Tamil nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and issued a charge memo dated 2.1.2009, not only for the alleged corrupt activity but also for failure to maintain integrity while on duty as per the conduct rules. That apart, the petitioner has failed to take necessary steps to prevent rearing of fish in Government land by Mr. P.A. Karuppiah, Rameshwaram and also failed to levy and collect any penal charges from the occupant of the Government land for misusing the land. Therefore, the petitioner was charge sheeted for lack of devotion to duty. It is further submitted that it is not necessary for the petitioner to be present at the time of acceptance of bribe amount in the house of the complainant, when he had already given instructions to the Village Assistant to go to the complainants house and collect the bribe amount on his behalf. He further submitted that there is no bar for initiating disciplinary proceedings when the petitioner is facing a criminal case before the Court of competent jurisdiction. He further submitted that as per G.O. Ms. No. 124, dated 22.2.1983, the Government has issued instructions to contemplate simultaneous departmental as well as criminal action against government servants in respect of various offences committed by them. Criminal action is pursued with reference to the offences, whereas, departmental action is initiated based on the lapses committed by the Government servants in the course of discharging their official duties as well as charges of corruption. 6. It is also submitted that there is a Government Letter Ms. No. 321, dated 12.8.2004 instructing the authorities to pass final orders in the disciplinary proceedings quickly without waiting for the results of the criminal case, using authenticated xerox or photo copies of the documents available in the Courts when simultaneous action is taken. 6. It is also submitted that there is a Government Letter Ms. No. 321, dated 12.8.2004 instructing the authorities to pass final orders in the disciplinary proceedings quickly without waiting for the results of the criminal case, using authenticated xerox or photo copies of the documents available in the Courts when simultaneous action is taken. The respondent has further submitted that the principle followed in the Court of law, in a criminal case, is that the offence has to be proved before reasonable doubt, whereas it is suffice to prove acts of misconduct. As regards exposure of defence, the respondent has submitted that the petitioner would not be prejudiced, if disciplinary proceedings are continued. As complex questions of law and fact are not involved, there is no need to keep the departmental proceedings in abeyance. For the above said reasons, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 8. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to extract the charges levelled against the petitioner before the Criminal Court in C.C. No. 8 of 2005 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram. 9. Pursuant to the demand on 24.9.2004 at about 9.15 hours in front of the house of Mr. P.A. Karuppiah, Mr. S. Nagarethnam, Village Assistant (A-2) accepted a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as bribe from the complainant on behalf of A-1, the petitioner herein as gratification other than legal remuneration for granting permission to continue the fish rearing in the Government land and thereby, A-1 and A-2 have committed an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 10. In course of the same transaction on 24.9.2004, at about 8.00 a.m., in front of the house of Mr. P.A. Karuppiah, at South Karaiyur, A-1 and A-2 being public servants, by corrupt or illegal means and by abusing their official position, A-2 obtained Rs. 3,000/- for A-1 as instructed by A-1 from Mr. P.A. Karuppiah, as pecuniary advantage in the circumstances stated above and thereby A-1 and A-2 have committed the offence punishable under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 11. 3,000/- for A-1 as instructed by A-1 from Mr. P.A. Karuppiah, as pecuniary advantage in the circumstances stated above and thereby A-1 and A-2 have committed the offence punishable under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 11. The formulated charges in the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the District Collector, Ramanathapuram are as follows: "(i) The petitioner as Tahsildar has failed to take necessary steps to prevent rearing of fish in Government land in S. No. 1044/3 and failed to levy and collect penal charges from him and received Rs. 3,000/- as bribe on 24.9.2004 through the Village Assistant Mr. S. Nagarethinam. (ii) That he has failed to maintain integrity and lack of devotion to duty and acted against the Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules. (iii) For his personal interest misused the power offered as Tahsildar. 12. 7 documents were sought to be marked as in the oral enquiry to sustain the charge. 6 witnesses were proposed to be examined. 13. In AIR 1999 SC 1416 : (1999) 3 SCC 679 : 1999-I-LLJ-1094, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering the catena of decisions relating to the departmental proceedings vis-a-vis criminal case, deduced the following conclusions in para 22, which reads as under at p. 1100 of LLJ: "22. The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are: (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 charge-sheet. (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 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." 14. A Division Bench of this Court, in (2006) 1 MLJ 511 : 2006 (1) CTC 689 , while considering the nature, purpose and scope of the departmental enquiry vis-a-vis the criminal proceedings and the issue as to whether departmental proceedings should be deferred till the conclusions of the criminal trial, in paras 13 and 14, held as follows at p. 516 of MLJ: "13. It is thus fairly settled law that on basic principles proceedings in a criminal case and a departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously, except in some cases where departmental proceedings and criminal case are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings are same. It is in these cases, the Court has to decide taking into account special features of the case whether simultaneous continuance of both would be proper. There can be no straight-jacket formula as to in which case the departmental proceedings have to be stayed, and the Court will have to decide in the given circumstances of a particular case as to whether disciplinary proceedings should be interdicted, pending criminal trial. "14. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the criminal action and the disciplinary proceedings are founded upon the same set of facts. "14. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the criminal action and the disciplinary proceedings are founded upon the same set of facts. In fact, the disciplinary proceedings are solely based upon the criminal complaint lodged by the president of a rival union, who is also facing prosecution with regard to the same incident. It has been conceded before us that the bank had not conducted any independent enquiry before initiating the impugned departmental proceedings." 15. The above said decision was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. While setting aside the judgment of the Division Bench, in (2008) 1 MLJ 37 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 22 held as under at p. 43 of MLJ: "22. The High Court, unfortunately, although it 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 analysing 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 in disciplinary proceedings, were same. Furthermore it was obligatory on the part of the High Court to arrive at a finding that the non-stay of the disciplinary proceedings shall not only prejudice the delinquent officers but the matter also involves a complicated question of law." 16. In AIR 2004 SC 4127 : (2004) 7 SCC 442 : 2004-III-LLJ-769, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered a case of a Upper Division Clerk arrested by CBI after a trap and was charged for the offences punishable under Section 7 read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. A case in this regard was pending trial before the competent Court. During the pendency of the trial, the appellants decided to initiate departmental proceedings against the respondent and a charge memo framing three charges was issued to the respondent. The first article in the memo of charges referred to allegations of the respondent receiving Rs. A case in this regard was pending trial before the competent Court. During the pendency of the trial, the appellants decided to initiate departmental proceedings against the respondent and a charge memo framing three charges was issued to the respondent. The first article in the memo of charges referred to allegations of the respondent receiving Rs. 200/- as bribe in violation of Rules 3(1)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article II of the said charge memo referred to the conduct of the appellant in not maintaining absolute integrity and devotion to duty and acting in a way unbecoming of an employee in violation of Rules 3(1)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article III of the said charge memo referred to the respondent suppressing the fact that he was in police custody on 16.9.2002 which according to the appellants was again a misconduct in violation of Rules 3(1)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. 17. A challenge was made before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, which came to the conclusion that the first two articles of charges are identical to the charge levelled against the petitioner before the Special Court under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the third article of charge though not a subject matter of the trial is an interconnected charge with charges 1 and 2 and therefore, allowed the Original Application of the respondent and consequently directed the appellants to keep the disciplinary proceedings in abeyance till the conclusion of the trial on the ground that proceeding with the departmental proceedings would expose the defence of the respondent in the pending criminal trial. On appeal, the High Court agreed with the decision of the Tribunal. The correctness of the order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 18. The respondents, to sustain the order of the High Court, contended that the charge before the criminal Court and departmental enquiry being identical, the appellants should not initiate parallel proceedings which would prohibit his defence. It was further submitted that the facts and material that would be relied upon in the departmental enquiry would be the same upon which the prosecuting agency before a criminal Court would also rely upon, hence, the respondent would be compelled to disclose his defence in advance which would seriously prejudice his case before the criminal Court. It was further submitted that the facts and material that would be relied upon in the departmental enquiry would be the same upon which the prosecuting agency before a criminal Court would also rely upon, hence, the respondent would be compelled to disclose his defence in advance which would seriously prejudice his case before the criminal Court. The decision rendered earlier by the Apex court in AIR 1997 SC 13 : (1996) 6 SCC 417 : 1997-I-LLJ-746, was applied wherein, it has been held that the only ground suggested in the decisions of the Supreme Court as constituting a valid ground for staying the disciplinary proceedings is that 'the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced'. This ground has, however, been hedged in by providing further that this may be done in cases of grave nature involving questions of fact and law. It means that not only the charges must be grave but that the case must involve complicated questions of law and fact. Moreover, 'advisability', desirability' or 'propriety' as the case may be, of staying the departmental enquiry has to be determined in each case taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case. Stay of disciplinary proceedings cannot be, and should not be, a matter of course. All these relevant factors, for and against, should be weighed and a decision taken keeping in view the various principles laid down in the Supreme Court decisions. Explaining the distinction between criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena (supra), observed that the approach and the objective in the criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings is altogether distinct and different. In the disciplinary proceedings, the question is whether the respondent 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 and, if established, what sentence should be imposed upon him. The Court in the above case further held that the standard of proof, mode of enquiry and the rules governing the enquiry and trial in both the cases are distinct and different. 19. The Court in the above case further held that the standard of proof, mode of enquiry and the rules governing the enquiry and trial in both the cases are distinct and different. 19. Therefore, applying the principles to be followed by the Courts in the matter of disciplinary proceedings with reference to acceptance of illegal gratification, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others v. T. Srinivas (supra), categorically held that neither the Tribunal nor the High Court did take into consideration the seriousness of the charge which pertains to the acceptance of illegal gratification and desirability of continuing the respondent in service in spite of such serious charges levelled against him. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that both the Tribunal and the High Court proceeded as if a departmental enquiry and a criminal trial should not be proceeded simultaneously and in their opinion, it is contrary to the principles laid down in the above cited cases. 20. In another yet decision in AIR 2005 SC 1406 : (2005) 10 SCC 471 : 2005-I-LLJ-588, the question that was posed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was that whether disciplinary proceedings can be continued despite the pendency of criminal proceedings against the respondent/employee, who was involved in the case of corruption. Short facts of the above said case are as follows: The CBI raided the house of the respondent employee and found that he was in possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income and a case was registered on 5.5.1998. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. In the meantime, departmental proceedings were initiated against the respondent and charge sheet was issued. The employee filed a writ petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, inter alia contended that once sanction was granted to launch criminal prosecution nothing further warrants initiation and continuance of departmental proceedings as the issues involved in both the departmental enquiry and the criminal case are identical. The appellants filed counter affidavit, contending inter alia that initiation of disciplinary proceedings and its continuation are in public interest. The appellants filed counter affidavit, contending inter alia that initiation of disciplinary proceedings and its continuation are in public interest. The three charges levelled against the employee, were viz., possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income and two other related to misconduct in not filing the returns at all for some years as required under Rule 13(1)(c) of the Hindustan Petroleum Management Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1976 and the third charge relating to failure of the respondent employee to file property returns for the years 1991-92, 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98. On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that charges 2 and 3 stated supra are different from charge No. 1 which relate to possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income and the charge No. 1 relates to corruption and therefore, it would not be proper to continue the appellant in employment as it would not be in public interest and in any event, the respondent would be able to place facts relevant to all the charges in the departmental proceedings. 21. In the above said case, placing reliance on Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. (supra) case, the employee submitted that if disciplinary proceedings were allowed to continue, he would be compelled to disclose his defence and in any event as charge No. 1 relates to corruption, the departmental authority have no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. After considering the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, viz., AIR 1997 SC 2232 : (1997) 2 SCC 699 : 1997-I-LLJ-902; State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena (supra) and in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in categorical terms, in para 13 held as follows: "13. It is to be noted that in cases involving Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, the onus is on the accused to prove that the assets found were not disproportionate to the known sources of income. The expression "known sources of income" is related to the sources known to the authorities and not the accused. It is to be noted that in cases involving Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, the onus is on the accused to prove that the assets found were not disproportionate to the known sources of income. The expression "known sources of income" is related to the sources known to the authorities and not the accused. The Explanation to Section 13(1) of the PC Act provides that for the purposes of the Section, "known sources of income" means income derived from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant. How the assets were acquired and from what source of income is within the special knowledge of the accused. Therefore, there is no question of any disclosure of defence in the departmental proceedings. In the criminal case, the accused has to prove the source of acquisition. He has to satisfactorily account for the same. Additionally, issues covered by Charges 2 and 3 cannot be the subject-matter of adjudication in the criminal case." 22. A Division Bench of this Court, considered a case in (2006) 4 MLJ 739 , where a Superintendent of Customs, Thirupur was trapped by the CBI on the charge of demand of illegal gratification for clearing export consignment and a criminal case in C.C. No. 3 of 2005 was registered on the file of the Principal Special Judge for CBI cases for the offences punishable under section 120(B) IPC read with Sections 7, 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Pending criminal case, the Union of India, represented by the Commissioner of Central Excise, decided to initiate departmental proceedings for having committed a gross misconduct and for the failure to discharge the duties of a public servant in connection with the clearance of export consignment in contravention of Rule 3(1)(i)(ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964. The core contention of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that if departmental proceedings are permitted to be proceeded with, he would be compelled to disclose his evidence in the departmental enquiry and the same would affect his defence in the trial and also cause prejudice. The Division Bench, after considering a catena of judgments, held that the question of prejudice of disclosure of defence before the criminal Court would not arise. The Division Bench, after considering a catena of judgments, held that the question of prejudice of disclosure of defence before the criminal Court would not arise. It is worthwhile to extract few decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which were relied on by the Division Bench, for arriving at the above said conclusion. 23. In AIR 1992 SC 1201 , wherein, it has been held that once the amount is found to be in possession of the accused, the burden lies on him to explain the circumstances and prove his innocence as contemplated under Rules of Corruption Act. Similar view was expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 2004 SC 1242 : (2004) 3 SCC 753 and AIR 2004 SC 2042 : (2004) 4 SCC 399 . Therefore, in the case of corruption, where a trap is laid and an illegal gratification is found in possession of the accused, it is his burden to prove the innocence and in such circumstances, there is no question of prejudice going to be caused on account of initiating or continuing the departmental proceedings simultaneously. 24. Reverting back to the present case, the petitioner who was formerly Tahsildar, Rameshwaram, was trapped by the Vigilance and Anti-corruption Department on 23.9.2003 for demanding and accepting of Rs. 3000/- as bribe from one Mr. P.A. Karuppaiah, to permit him to rear fish the ponds located in government lands. After investigation, a charge sheet has been filed under Sections 7, 13(2)(d) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram. The case of the petitioner is that the alleged trap was laid in front of the house of the complainant and the alleged demand and acceptance was only by the Village Assistant, Mr. Nagrathinam and that he had absolutely no connection whatsoever with the crime. The further contention of the petitioner is that the complainant had grudge against him and if the petitioner discloses his defence as to how the complainant is aggrieved in the discharge of the petitioner's official duty and as to how he is having a grudge against the petitioner and utilized the services of accused No. 2, it would certainly cause prejudice to his defence in the criminal case. It is well known that the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and other materials would form basis for laying a charge sheet before the criminal Court. The statements recorded in the departmental proceedings and depositions are not placed before the criminal Court as evidence while adjudicating the trial. Further, any conclusion to be arrived at in the departmental proceedings will not bind the criminal Court as the standard of proof, mode of enquiry and the rules governing the enquiry and trial, in both the cases are distinct and different. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in State (2004) 7 SCC 27 , the purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution are two different and distinct aspects. Criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of a duty the offender owes to the society, or for breach of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. So crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. It is not therefore, desirable to lay down any guidelines as inflexible rules in which the departmental proceedings may or may not be stayed pending trial in criminal case against the delinquent officer. Each case requires to be considered in the backdrop of its own facts and circumstances. There can be no bar to proceed simultaneously with the departmental enquiry unless the charge in the criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law. Offence involving corruption generally implies infringement of public duty, as distinguished from mere private rights punishable under criminal law. When trial for criminal offence is conducted it should be in accordance with proof, as per the evidence defined under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Converse is the case of a departmental enquiry. The enquiry in a departmental proceeding relates to conduct or breach of duty of the delinquent officer, to punish him for his misconduct defined under the relevant statutory rules or law. That the strict standard of proof or applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded is the settled legal position. What is required to be seen is whether the departmental enquiry would seriously prejudice the delinquent in his defence at the trial in a criminal case. That the strict standard of proof or applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded is the settled legal position. What is required to be seen is whether the departmental enquiry would seriously prejudice the delinquent in his defence at the trial in a criminal case. It is always a question of fact to be considered in each case depending on its own facts and circumstances. 25. In the present case on hand, the departmental proceedings initiated by the District Collector, Ramanathapuram against the petitioner on 2.1.2009 is not only for demand and acceptance of bribe through the Village Assistant, but for other administrative lapses committed by him. It is also alleged that the petitioner has failed to maintain integrity while on duty as per the conduct rules and being the Tahsildar, has failed to take necessary steps to prevent rearing of fish in Government lands by Mr. P.A. Karuppiah and also failed to levy and collect any penal charges from the occupant of the government land for misusing the land. The fact remains that the criminal trial has already begun and number of witnesses have already been examined by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram. The number of witnesses to be relied in the departmental proceedings are 6. There is no complex of question of law and facts involved in departmental proceedings and the criminal case though there is similarity of charges. It is to be noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others v. T. Srinivas (supra) has held that the Tribunal or the High Court should take into consideration the seriousness of the charge which pertains to acceptance of illegal gratification and the desirability of continuing the appellant in service. In such a view of the matter, applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Overseas Bank v. P. Ganesan and Others (supra), this Court is of the view that non-staying of disciplinary proceedings would not in any way cause prejudice to the petitioner of his defence before the criminal Court. Therefore, this Court is unable to subscribe to the contentions of the petitioner and hence there is no need to keep the departmental proceedings in abeyance, till the conclusion of the criminal pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram. Therefore, this Court is unable to subscribe to the contentions of the petitioner and hence there is no need to keep the departmental proceedings in abeyance, till the conclusion of the criminal pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram. It is also well settled that in cases relating to corruption, the investigating agency consumes sometime for collection of materials from various sources before laying the charge sheet. Any delay in formulating and completion of departmental enquiry on account of pendency of criminal case would give a wrong signal that corrupt officials would be permitted to continue to be remain in office, till the outcome of the criminal trial, which in normal course is expected to take a considerable time depending upon the number of cases registered and pending under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Needless to say that corruption is like a cancer in the body and unless the affected portion is removed, it would spread into other parts of the body. Corruption in public offices is a known phenomina and has affected the administration in day today life of the society and in such view of the matter, the employer should be permitted to take appropriate disciplinary action against corrupt persons to eliminate them from the administration in order to maintain discipline and efficiency in public service. The authority of the administration should not be restricted on the sole ground, it would expose the defence of the accused before the criminal Court. There is no hard and fast rule as stated supra, that in all the cases, where simultaneous proceedings are taken, the department should await the outcome of the criminal case. Considering the gravity of the charge of corruption and public interest, in my opinion, continuation of disciplinary proceedings would not in any way prejudice the petitioner. 26. In the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court, the writ petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected MP are closed. Petition dismissed.