Judgment :- Ghulam Mohammed , J This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 09.04.2008 passed in O.A.No.197 of 2008 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and to direct the respondents not to proceed with the departmental enquiry till disposal of the criminal case pending against the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Station Post Master, Varni, S.O. While he was working, based on a report given by the Assistant Superintendent Post Officer, Nizamabad, North Sub-Division, Nizamabad, he was suspended from service on 20.01.2007 on the ground of certain irregularities. A case in Crime No.227 of 2006 of Varni Police Station, Nizamabad District, was also registered against him for the offences under Sections 409, 468 and 420 IPC on 31.12.2006. Thereafter, the first respondent issued a memo dated 18.10.2007 along with the statement of articles of charge to the petitioner. He made a representation dated 01.12.2007 to the first respondent seeking to keep the departmental inquiry in abeyance till conclusion of the criminal case, but no orders have been passed thereon. Hence, he filed O.A.No.197 of 2008 and the same was dismissed on 09.04.2008 at the admission stage. Challenging the same, he filed the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when the departmental proceedings and the criminal proceedings are identical, it is desirable to stay the departmental proceedings. He relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Indian Overseas Bank, Annasalai V. P. Ganesan (2008)1 Scc 650 . He further contended that if the departmental proceedings are not stayed, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that in the criminal case pending against the petitioner, no charge sheet has been filed and that if the departmental proceedings are stayed till conclusion of the criminal proceedings, prejudice will be caused to the department. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government and perused the record. 6. In Capt. M. Paul Anthony V. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd (1999) 3 Scc 679 the Apex Court held that the departmental proceedings need not be stayed during pendency of the criminal case save and except for cogent reasons and its findings are as under: "22. 6. In Capt. M. Paul Anthony V. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd (1999) 3 Scc 679 the Apex Court held that the departmental proceedings need not be stayed during pendency of the criminal case save and except for cogent reasons and its findings are as under: "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 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 honor may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest. In State of Rajasthan V. B.K. Meena (1996) 6 Scc 417 the Apex Court held as under: "The staying of disciplinary proceedings, it is emphasized, is a matter to be determined having regard to the facts and circumstances of a given case and that no hard and fast rules can be enunciated in that behalf. The only ground suggested in the above decisions 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. The only ground suggested in the above decisions 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. In our respectful opinion, 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, has to be determined in each case taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case". 7. In INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK's case (1 supra), the Apex Court having considered the above said two decisions, held as under: "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. 8. It is a settled proposition of law that the criminal and departmental proceedings are entirely different and that the standard of proof, the mode of enquiry and the rules governing the enquiry and trial are conceptually different. Further, as held by the Apex Court, unless complicated questions of fact and law are involved in the matter, the question of staying the departmental proceedings does not arise. In the instant case, no such complicated questions of fact and law are involved. Though the petitioner has been served with a memo dated 18.10.2007 along with the articles of charge directing him to submit a written statement of his defence within 10 days from the date of receipt of it, he has not submitted any written statement of defence within the stipulated time, except representation dated 01.12.2007, and approached the Tribunal as well as this Court. In the circumstances, we do not find any error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.