JUDGMENT : Subrata Talukdar, J. In this appeal the appellant-petitioner has challenged the order dated 7th February, 2013 passed by the Ld. 13th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Title Suit No. 804 of 2012. 2. The present appellant was the plaintiff in the suit. The appellant filed the suit for declaration and injunction and claimed the following reliefs:- "c. Decree for declaration that the purported disciplinary proceeding initiated by the defendant pursuant to the notice dated 22.11.2011 as stated in the plaint is void ab-initio and a nullity and the defendant had no right to initiate the said disciplinary proceeding in a manner and for the reason it was purportedly initiated, and the plaintiff is not at all bound to attend before any such disciplinary proceeding and is further not bound by any act done or findings made or orders passed in such void disciplinary proceeding. f. Decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and its officers, agents and servants from proceeding with the purported disciplinary proceeding initiated pursuant to the notice of the defendant to the plaintiff dated 22.11.2011 and further restraining them to give any effect to and/or further effect to any order and/or finding made in such disciplinary proceeding and also restraining them from curtailing any right or benefit of the plaintiff as an employee of the defendant any manner arising out of and/or touching or concerning or related to the said purported disciplinary proceeding." 3. The appellant filed an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC praying, inter alia for an order of restraint on the defendant, its officers and agents from further proceeding with the disciplinary enquiry against him. According to the appellant, in respect of the self-same subject matter of the disciplinary proceeding he is facing criminal trial before the Ld. 2nd Special CBI Court, Kolkata. The Charge framed against the appellant reads as follows:- "1. That, you being a public servant employed as Regional Manager, The National Book Trust of India, Kolkata demanded and agreed to accept an illegal gratification of Rs. 2nd Special CBI Court, Kolkata. The Charge framed against the appellant reads as follows:- "1. That, you being a public servant employed as Regional Manager, The National Book Trust of India, Kolkata demanded and agreed to accept an illegal gratification of Rs. 50,000/- from the Complainant Shri Biswajit Chanda as reward for having cleared the payment of bill for the work done i.e. temporary construction of Civil/Electrical/PA System for Nowgaon Book Fair as well as motive for favourable recommendation of tender of the Complainant firm for execution of similar work at Aizwal Book Fair to be invited in the month of July 2010 and accordingly on 30.06.2010 at Peter Cat, Bar & Restaurant at Park Street, Kolkata accepted an amount of Rs. 50000/- from one Shri Biswajit Chanda, (i.e. complainant) for yourself, as gratification other than legal remuneration, in pursuance of your demand made earlier as alleged in the complaint dated 30.06.2010 as a motive or reward for clearing the payment of bill for the work done i.e. temporary construction of Civil/Electrical/PA System for Nowgaon Book Fair as well as motive for favourable recommendation of tender of the Complainant firm for execution of similar work at Aizwal Book Fair to be invited in the month of July 2010 and you thereby committed offence punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and within the cognizance of this Court. 2. That, you being a public servant employed as Regional Manager, The National Book Trust of India, Kolkata on 30.06.2010 at Peter Cat, Bar & Restaurant at Park Street, Kolkata accepted an amount of Rs. 50000/- from one Shri Biswajit Chanda, (i.e. complainant) for yourself, as gratification other than legal remuneration, in pursuance of your demand made earlier as alleged in the complaint dated 30.06.2010 as a motive or reward for clearing the payment of bill for the work done i.e. temporary construction of Civil/Electrical/PA System for Nowgaon Book Fair as well as motive for favourable recommendation of tender of the Complainant firm for execution of similar work at Aizwal Book Fair to be invited in the month of July 2010 and you thereby committed offence defined under section 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988 which is punishable under section 13(2) of the said Act and within the cognizance of this Court." 4. The short grievance of the appellant in this appeal is that the memorandum of charge in the disciplinary proceeding instituted by the defendant is identical to the criminal charge framed against him. Therefore, by law he is entitled to a stay of the disciplinary proceeding pending conclusion of the criminal trial in order to protect him from prior disclosure of evidence which is likely to prejudice him in the criminal trial. 5. Sri Jiban Ratan Chatterjee, Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant draws the attention of this Court to the Memorandum of Charge issued in the disciplinary proceeding:- "Article I : That the said Shri Subir Dutta while working as Regional Manager, Eastern Regional Office, National Book Trust, Kolkata during the year 2010 committed grave misconduct in as much as on 29.6.2010 he demanded from Shri Biswajit Chanda, Proprietor M/s Biswajit Chanda, Kolkata a sum of Rs. 50,000/- by way of bribe for having cleared the payment of bill of Shri Biswajit Chanda for the work relating to temporary construction of Civil/Electrical PA System for Nowgaon Book Fair in Assam executed by the said firm as also for making favourable recommendation in favour of the said firm in response to a tender to be floated by National Book Trust for execution of similar work at Aizwal Book Fair in the month of July, 2010. Subsequently, Shri Dutta was caught red handed by a team of Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Branch, Kolkata at Peter Cat Bar & Restaurant, Park Street, Kolkata on 30.6.2010 and taken into custody. The alleged act of Shri Dutta has brought disrepute to National Book Trust and constitutes grave misconduct on his part and casts a sever reflection on his integrity. Shri Dutta has thereby violated Rule 3(1)(i)(ii)(iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964 as made applicable to the employees of the Trust." 6. Sri Chatterjee points out that the Memorandum of Charge is identical to the charges framed against the appellant in the criminal trial. He also submits that the list of documents proposed to be submitted in support of the Memorandum of Charge in the disciplinary proceeding are pari materia to the documents by which the criminal charge is sought to be prosecuted. He also submits that the list of documents proposed to be submitted in support of the Memorandum of Charge in the disciplinary proceeding are pari materia to the documents by which the criminal charge is sought to be prosecuted. Sri Chatterjee draws inspiration from judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court on the abovenoted solitary point which has come up for adjudication in this appeal that when both the disciplinary proceeding and the criminal trial are pending on identical charges, the disciplinary proceeding deserves to be stayed. 7. Sri Chatterjee relies on the following decisions in support of his contention:- 1992 (3) SCC 124 in the matter of Union of India and Others v. A.N. Saxena; 1996 (6) SCC 417 in the matter of State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena and Others; 1999 (3) SCC 679 in the matter of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. And Another; 2004 (7) SCC 442 in the matter of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others v. T. Srinivas; 2005 (10) SCC 471 in the matter of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And Others v. Sarvesh Berry; 2008 (1) SCC 650 in the matter of Indian Overseas Bank, Annasalai and Another v. P. Ganesan and Others; SLP (c) Nos. 30371-30376 of 2012 in the matter of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Ltd. v. Girish V and Ors. 8. Sri Chatterjee submits that the Ld. 13th Bench, City Civil Court erred in not applying the correct proposition of law to the facts of the present case. He asserts that in a situation where both the criminal trial and the departmental proceeding are based on identical charges, the departmental proceeding must be stayed to protect the delinquent from disclosure of evidence which may prejudice him in the trial. According to Sri Chatterjee, the Ld. Trial Court was wrong in holding that in the facts of this case the disciplinary proceeding was in the nature of an independent proceeding whereas ex facie both the Memorandum of Charge in the disciplinary enquiry and the Charge framed in the criminal trial are identical. 9. Sri Chatterjee therefore submits that the Ld. Trial Court committed an error of law in refusing the relief of temporary injunction to the appellant. 10. Per Contra, Sri Dhrubajyoti Ghosh, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant submits that it is not a rule of thumb that in all cases the disciplinary proceeding deserves to be stayed. 9. Sri Chatterjee therefore submits that the Ld. Trial Court committed an error of law in refusing the relief of temporary injunction to the appellant. 10. Per Contra, Sri Dhrubajyoti Ghosh, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant submits that it is not a rule of thumb that in all cases the disciplinary proceeding deserves to be stayed. 11. In support of his contention he relies upon the following decisions:- AIR 1997 Supreme Court 13 in the matter of State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena and others at paragraph 16; AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1416 in the matter of M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. And another at paragraph 34. 12. This Court observes that in WPST 479 of 2013 in the matter of Balai Kumar Sanfui v. The State of West Bengal and Another’s (unreported) an Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court was pleased to consider a catena of judgments on the point which is also in issue here viz., whether departmental proceeding and a criminal trial can simultaneously proceed if the charges in respect of both are identical. The further issue which also arises for consideration is whether the charge against the delinquent employee in the criminal case is of a grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law making it desirable to stay the departmental proceeding. 13. In this connection it will be useful to reproduce paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of Balai Kumar Sanfui (supra):- "9. The Supreme Court in the Case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. And Another reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 took a conspectus of all its earlier decisions including the case of State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena & Others reported in (1996) 6 SCC 417 and summarised the conclusions which were deducible from those judgments thus: "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. (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 of 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 if found guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest. 10. In Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Others v. T. Srinivas reported in (2004) 7 SCC 442 the employee had been arrested by the CBI after a trap was set and was charged for offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The departmental proceedings were initiated on the basis of the same charge against the employee. After considering the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra) and State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena (supra) the Supreme Court held that the advisability, desirability or property, as the case may be, with respect to the continuation of the departmental enquiry is to be determined taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case. It was held that the stay or departmental proceedings cannot be granted as a matter of course. 11. It was held that the stay or departmental proceedings cannot be granted as a matter of course. 11. In State of Bank of India & Others v. R.B. Sharma reported in AIR 2004 SC 4144 the Supreme Court held that the purpose of a departmental enquiry and that of a prosecution are distinct and different; while the departmental enquiry is held to maintain discipline in service, the prosecution is initiated to punish for infringement of a public duty. After considering Capt. M. Paul Anthony's case (supra) the Court observed that though an elaborate reasoning is not necessary, a skeletal description of how there is a substantial similarity between the allegations contained in the charge-sheet issued by the department and criminal prosecution must be set out in the order. 12. Later, in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Others v. Sarvesh Berry reported in (2005) 10 SCC 471 the Court reiterated its view in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra) and State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena (supra). The Court observed that it is a well settled position in law that a criminal case and departmental proceeding can progress simultaneously except where the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common. The Court has to decide taking into account the special features of each case whether the simultaneous continuance of both the proceedings would be proper. The Court further observed that there could be no straitjacket formula for staying the departmental proceedings during the pendency of criminal trial. This is because the criminal trial may be prolonged by dilatory tactics adopted by the delinquent official. 13. Thus considering the aforesaid judgments the principles which emerge are that there can be no straitjacket formula prescribed for staying the departmental proceedings when a criminal case is pending simultaneously against a delinquent employee. This is because the purpose of a departmental enquiry and of a prosecution are different. The departmental enquiry is conducted to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency in public service. A criminal prosecution is launched for an offence of violating the duty that an offender owes to the society for a breach of law or for omission of a public duty. The departmental enquiry is conducted to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency in public service. A criminal prosecution is launched for an offence of violating the duty that an offender owes to the society for a breach of law or for omission of a public duty. If departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical or similar set of facts and the charge against the delinquent employee in the criminal trial is of a grave nature, involving complicated questions of law and fact and the evidence to be led in both proceedings would be the same, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal trial. Whether a charge in the criminal case is grave and whether it raises complicated questions of fact and law depends on the nature of the offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee and on the basis of the evidence and material collected against him during the investigation or as reflected in the charge-sheet. Having regard to the special features of the case, the Court would have to consider the propriety of staying departmental proceedings which cannot be unduly delayed because criminal trials can be prolonged for various reasons. An employer cannot be saddled with a delinquent employee who is being tried in a criminal case, endlessly, considering the nature of the offence that he has allegedly committed. The other aspect which the Supreme Court has considered in the aforesaid judgments is that the standard of the proof required in a criminal case is different from the one required in the departmental proceedings. While in a criminal trial the prosecution has to prove the case against the delinquent beyond reasonable doubt, in a departmental enquiry it is only the preponderance of probabilities against him which must be ascertainead." 14. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Overseas Bank, Annasalai and Another v. P. Ganesan and Others reported in 2008 (1) SCC 650 held at paragraph 18 as follows:- "18. Legal position operating in the field is no longer res integra. A departmental proceeding pending a criminal proceeding does not warrant an automatic stay. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Overseas Bank, Annasalai and Another v. P. Ganesan and Others reported in 2008 (1) SCC 650 held at paragraph 18 as follows:- "18. Legal position operating in the field is no longer res integra. A departmental proceeding pending a criminal proceeding 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." 15. In Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Ltd. v. Girish V and Others (SLP (c) No. 30371-30376) of 2012 the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to, inter alia, observe that the only test for considering whether the departmental enquiry was required to be stayed is whether the charges against the delinquent in the criminal trial were serious. The Hon'ble Apex Court was of the further view that the First Information Report did not point to any complicated or complex question of fact or law. However, in the facts of Stanzen Case the Hon'ble Apex Court granted stay for one year of the departmental proceeding pending completion of the criminal trial. The Hon'ble Apex Court also gave liberty to the employer to resume disciplinary proceeding in the event the criminal trial was not completed within the time granted staying the disciplinary proceeding, i.e. one year. 16. In Firoz Ahmed v. Union of India reported in 2004 CHN (Cal) 399 an Hon'ble Single Bench of this Court was pleased to find that the continuance of the departmental proceeding would cause a real danger to the defence of the employee in the criminal trial and therefore the departmental proceeding was stayed till the conclusion of the criminal trial. 17. Upon noticing the judgments in Stanzen (supra) and in Firoz Ahmed (supra), the Hon'ble Division Bench, in the facts of Sanfui's case (supra) also found that grave prejudice shall be caused if the departmental enquiry is allowed to proceed inasmuch as the departmental enquiry will involve disclosure of his defence which the delinquent would be otherwise entitled to raise at the criminal trial. Therefore, the Hon'ble Division Bench stayed the departmental proceeding for a period of one year and, in the event the criminal trial was not completed within that period the parties were granted the liberty to approach the Court for appropriate orders. 18. On the facts of the present case this Court finds that the charges in both the criminal trial and in the departmental proceeding are identical. This Court is of the further opinion that prejudice will be caused to the petitioner in the event he is compelled to disclose in the departmental proceeding his defence which he would be entitled to raise at the criminal trial. Although this Court notices that both the charges in the criminal trial and in the departmental proceeding are singular and straight, nonetheless the petitioner is entitled to protection from prior disclosure of his defence. 19. This Court is already informed of the fact that Charge has been framed in the criminal trial. However, the progress of the criminal trial till date has not been brought to the notice of this Court by any of the parties. In such view of the matter this Court is of the considered view that the interests of justice will be sub-served in the event the departmental enquiry which is pending against the petitioner is stayed for a period of one year. In the event the criminal trial is not completed within the said period of one year from date the parties will be at liberty to apply before the appropriate Court for further orders. 20. Before parting with the case another point needs to be dealt with, i.e. the present appellant filed an earlier writ petition before an Hon'ble Single Bench of this Court challenging the order of his suspension in the departmental proceeding. On the refusal by the Hon'ble Single Bench to grant him interim protection by not staying the order of suspension, the appellant preferred a writ appeal before another Hon'ble Division Bench being FMA 1528 of 2011. In the said writ appeal the appellant filed an application being CAN 10851 of 2011 bringing on record the fact of initiation of departmental proceeding against him after filing of the appeal being FMA 1528 of 2011. By way of such application the appellant prayed for a stay of the departmental proceeding. 21. In the said writ appeal the appellant filed an application being CAN 10851 of 2011 bringing on record the fact of initiation of departmental proceeding against him after filing of the appeal being FMA 1528 of 2011. By way of such application the appellant prayed for a stay of the departmental proceeding. 21. The Hon'ble Division Bench while refusing relief to the appellant in FMA 1528 of 2011 also refused the relief in the connected CAN 10851 of 2011 on the ground that on the platform of an initial challenge to an order of suspension, the departmental proceeding is of a "different depth and amplitude" and therefore found the application to be not maintainable. The Hon'ble Division Bench however granted the appellant the relief of applying for a proper remedy by making an appropriate application. The operative part of the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench in FMA 1528 of 2011 and CAN 10001 of 2011 with CAN 10851 of 2011 dated 27th January, 2012 reads as follows:- "Having regard to the aforesaid legal position, we are of the view that this application is not maintainable for adjudication by us while we heard the appeal. This application accordingly stands dismissed. Dismissal of the application, however, will not debar the appellant to file any appropriate application, if it is considered fit and proper agitating the points available under the law." 22. In the background of the above facts the petitioner applied before the Civil Court for staying the disciplinary proceeding by filing Title Suit No. 804 of 2012. On refusal of his relief of injunction vide the order dated 7th February, 2013 he has preferred the present appeal, FMA 966 of 2013 which stands allowed as above. 23. There will be, however, no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.