ORDER 1. The petitioner is working as Constable in Railway Protection Force, Madurai, and his wife gave a complaint before East Police Station, Virudhunagar, on 18.4.2012, against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 323 , 506(i) IPC and read with Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act. The petitioner was also placed under suspension under Schedule III of Railway Protection Force, 1987 and the suspension order was revoked on 25.8.2012 and the fourth respondent was directed to conduct the enquiry into the allegations made in the charge memo. Meanwhile, the Virudhunagar East Police Station also filed a charge sheet in Crime No. 315 of 2012 against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 323 and 506(i) IPC read with Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act. In these circumstances, this writ petition is filed by the petitioner to stay the departmental proceedings pending against the criminal cases filed against him on the basis of the complaint given by his wife. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the basis of the complaint given by his wife a case in Crime No. 315 of 2012 was registered by the Virudhunagar East Police Station for the offences under Sections 323 and 506(i) IPC read with Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act and the charge sheet was also laid against the petitioner for the said offences by the said police station. He further submitted that he was also placed under suspension on the basis of the complaint given by his wife and the perusal of the statement of imputation given against the petitioner would also make it clear that the departmental enquiry was initiated on the basis of complaint given by his wife before the police and therefore having regard to the identity of charges in criminal cases as well as in the departmental proceedings, the departmental proceedings has to be stayed till the disposal of the criminal case. He further submitted that if the departmental proceedings are not stayed it would cause serious prejudice to him and he would not be in a position to defend both case and that would also amount double jeopardy. 3. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. He further submitted that if the departmental proceedings are not stayed it would cause serious prejudice to him and he would not be in a position to defend both case and that would also amount double jeopardy. 3. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the judgment in the Deputy Inspector General of Police and Another v. S. Samuthiram (2013) 1 LW 319 , the Honourable Supreme Court dealt with this aspect of case law and held that the pendency of the criminal case cannot be bar to the initiation of departmental proceedings. Further, in the judgment in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., and Another AIR 1999 SC 1416 : (1999) 3 SCC 679 : (1999) SCC (L&S) 810 , the Honourable Supreme Court laid down the guidelines and as per Guideline No. (i), the Departmental proceedings and criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. It is further stated that in Guideline No. (ii) that 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. In the judgment in State Bank of Hyderabad v. P. Kata Rao (2008) 15 SCC 657 , the Honourable Supreme Court held as follows: “The legal principle enunciated to the effect that on the same set of facts the delinquent shall not be proceeded in a departmental proceedings and in a criminal case simultaneously, has, however, been deviated from. The dicta of this Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., and Another (supra), however, remains unshaken although the applicability thereof had been found to be dependant on the fact situation obtaining in each case.” In the judgment Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. M.G. Vittal Rao (2012) 1 SCC 442 , the entire case law has been discussed in paragraphs 17 to 21 and it is held as follows: “17. In Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., and Another (supra), this Court held that there can be no bar for continuing both the proceedings simultaneously. In Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., and Another (supra), this Court held that there can be no bar for continuing both the proceedings simultaneously. The Court placed reliance upon a large number of its earlier judgments, including Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Kushal Bhan, AIR 1960 SC 806 , Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Workmen, AIR 1965 SC 155 , Jang Bahadur Singh v. Baij Nath Tiwari AIR 1969 SC 30 : 1969 Cri LJ 267 , Kusheshwar Dubey v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. AIR 1988 SC 2118 : (1988) 4 SCC 319 : (1988) SCC (L&S)950 , Nelson Motis v. Union of India (1992) 4 SCC 711 and in State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena (1996) 6 SCC 417 , and held that proceedings in a criminal case and departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously except where both the proceedings are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common. In departmental proceedings, factors prevailing in the mind of the disciplinary authority may be many, such as enforcement of discipline or to investigate the level of integrity of the delinquent or the other staff. The standard of proof required in those proceedings is also different from that required in a criminal case. While in departmental proceedings, the standard of proof is one of preponderance of probabilities, in a criminal case, the charge has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Where the charge against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it is desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till conclusion of the criminal case. In case the criminal case does not proceed expeditiously, the departmental proceedings cannot be kept in abeyance for ever and may be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude the same at an early date. The purpose is that if the employee is found not guilty his cause may be vindicated, and in case he is found guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest. 18. However, while deciding the case, taking into consideration the facts involved therein, the Court held: Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., and Another (supra) case page 695 para 35) “35. 18. However, while deciding the case, taking into consideration the facts involved therein, the Court held: Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., and Another (supra) case page 695 para 35) “35. Since the facts and the evidence in both the proceedings, namely, the departmental proceedings and the criminal case were the same without there being any iota of difference, the distinction, which is usually drawn as between the departmental proceedings and the criminal case on the basis of approach and burden of proof, would not be applicable to the instant case.” 19. In SBI v. R.B. Sharma (2006) 2 SCC 584 , same view has been reiterated observing that both proceedings can be held simultaneously, except where departmental proceedings in criminal case are based on same set of facts and evidence in both the proceedings is common. The Court observed as under: “8. 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 (a) public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service.” 20. While deciding the said case a very heavy reliance has been placed upon the earlier judgment of this Court in A.P. SRTC v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya (1997) 2 SCC 699 , wherein it has been held that both proceedings can be held simultaneously unless the gravity of the charges demand staying the disciplinary proceedings till the trial is concluded as complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case. 21. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Supdt. of Post Offices v. A. Gopalan (1997) 11 SCC 239 , Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. T. Srinivas, (2004) 7 SCC 442 , Krishnakali Tea Estate v. Akhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor Sangh (2004) 8 SCC 200 , Commr. of Police v. Narender Singh, (2006) 4 SCC 265 , South Bengal State Transport Corpn. v. Sapan Kumar Mitra (2006) 2 SCC 584 and Punjab Water Supply Sewerage Board v. Ram Sajivan (2007) 9 SCC 86 .” 4. of Police v. Narender Singh, (2006) 4 SCC 265 , South Bengal State Transport Corpn. v. Sapan Kumar Mitra (2006) 2 SCC 584 and Punjab Water Supply Sewerage Board v. Ram Sajivan (2007) 9 SCC 86 .” 4. In this case, having regard to the charges levelled against the petitioner, the departmental proceedings and charge sheet filed in criminal case cannot be stayed that both are identical. No doubt, the departmental proceedings were initiated on the basis of the complaint given by the wife of the petitioner which lead to the registration of crime against the petitioner and he was also arrested. But, in the departmental proceedings action was taken for having violated Rules No. 146.1, 146.4, 147(ii) and (vi) of RPF Rules, 1987, stating that he was in judicial custody for more than 48 hours and he was absent from duties from 19.4.2012 to 24.4.2012 and he brought disrepute to the force. Therefore, in addition to the alleged misbehavior of the petitioner against his wife charges for his absent froom duties from 19.4.2012 to 24.4.2012 and his remand to judicial custody for more than 48 hours are included in the charge memo. These aspects cannot be considered in the criminal case and only the Enquiry Officer has to go into such allegations. Hence, it cannot be stayed that the charges are identical in both cases and therefore, the departmental proceedings should be stayed. Further, as per the law laid down in Capt. M.Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., and Another (supra), the charges levelled against the petitioner in criminal cases are not grave and no complicated question of law is involved to decide the issue. Therefore, there is no need to stay the departmental proceedings. 5. Hence, I do not find any merits in the writ petition and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.