JUDGMENT (Per : A. B. Chaudhari, J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. SUBMISSIONS: 2. The State of Maharashtra has preferred the instant writ petition against the judgment and order dated 20.11.2013 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) in Original Application No.755/2012 by which the MAT stayed the departmental enquiry vide chargesheet dated 28.06.2012 till Criminal Case No.13/2012 is decided. 3. In support of the writ petition, Mr. Ukey, learned A.G.P. assailing the impugned order, vehemently submitted that there is a clear cut error of law committed by the MAT by relying on the decision in Capt. M.Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd; AIR 1999 SC 1416 , which decision was, at later point of time, explained by the Apex Court in several subsequent decisions. He submitted that there is no straight jacket formula or rule anywhere that if a criminal case is filed and it is pending, the departmental enquiry should necessarily be stayed by the court of law. He submitted that the respondent who was working as Accounts Officer with the office of State Consumer Redressal Forum, Nagpur was caught red handed while accepting the bribe amount of Rs.500/. He had demanded it for releasing the security deposit of the complainant. After the FIR was lodged by the complainant, the offence was registered and the respondent was caught red handed while accepting the amount of Rs.500/and no other amount of evidence is required to prove his guilt. According to Mr. Ukey, such a person working with the office of a quasi judicial authority namely; State Consumer Redressal Forum, cannot be allowed to be relieved off the misconduct for major penalty on the ground of pendency of the criminal case against him. He then submitted that the decisions by the Apex Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others Vs. T.Srinivas; AIR 2004 SC 4127 and Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited.vs. Girish V. and ors.; (2014) 3 SCC 636 , clearly show that the tribunal should not have made an order of stay of departmental enquiry. He, therefore, prayed for quashing of the impugned order. 4. Per contra, Mr. Saboo, learned counsel for the respondent-original applicant before the MAT, opposed the present writ petition and submitted that the impugned order is based on the decision in Capt.M.Paul Anthony (supra) and no interference is required to be made. He, therefore, prayed for quashing of the impugned order. 4. Per contra, Mr. Saboo, learned counsel for the respondent-original applicant before the MAT, opposed the present writ petition and submitted that the impugned order is based on the decision in Capt.M.Paul Anthony (supra) and no interference is required to be made. He then submitted that the criminal trial under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act is fixed for evidence and, therefore, this court should not make interference at this stage. He then submitted that the petition itself was filed belatedly after about eight months and, therefore, the same should not be entertained. Mr. Saboo then invited our attention to a chart at Annexure A-8 showing that the allegations in the criminal case as well as in the chargesheet are the same and, therefore, the MAT was right in staying the enquiry. CONSIDERATION: 5. We have heard learned counsel for the rival parties at length. We have perused the impugned order passed by the MAT. It is not in dispute that on 29.04.2011 the respondent was holding the post of Accounts Officer in the office of the State Consumer Redressal Commission. The complainant-Amol Jamnere had made security deposit in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/with the Commission. Thereafter, he was entitled to refund of the said amount of Rs.2,00,000/. He made an application for refund of the amount that was deposited by him. The respondent-Accounts Officer, in his usual style demanded the bribe amount of Rs.500/for releasing the security deposit to him. Pursuant to the FIR lodged by the complainant, he was caught red handed while accepting the amount of Rs.500/and accordingly, the chargesheet was filed in the court. Thereafter, the departmental chargesheet was issued to him since the allegations levelled against him were very serious that the respondent, who is a person working with the quasi judicial forum had indulged in demanding bribe amount of Rs.500/for releasing the deposit of the litigant. The money was of the complainant-Amol Jamnere and the respondent had absolutely no business to ask for amount of Rs.500/- for giving back his money. This is nothing but atrocious and sending wrong signal about the institution. The misconduct committed by him is very serious and such a conduct cannot be allowed to go unpunished. The institution does not need such elements. 6. This is nothing but atrocious and sending wrong signal about the institution. The misconduct committed by him is very serious and such a conduct cannot be allowed to go unpunished. The institution does not need such elements. 6. The respondent, in an attempt to take advantage of the pendency of the criminal case, merrily made an application before the MAT on the ground that he would be required to disclose his defence in the departmental enquiry. We have perused the averments in the original application before the MAT carefully and we find from the averments in the application that the respondent has not at all disclosed how he would be prejudiced, what would be the nature of prejudice and what defence would be prejudiced. Thus, except for making bald statement, there is nothing in the application as to how he would be prejudiced if he participates in the enquiry and the departmental enquiry is completed. There is a clarion call for eradication of the cancer of corruption. But, it has assumed the character of a hydraheaded monster. 7. We cannot be oblivious of the fact that the criminal trial takes its own time. Not only that, then there is an appeal that is provided. Should the departmental enquiry be kept in abeyance even in the cases relating to bribery? We think, staying departmental enquiry would be destructive of the movement for eradication of corruption. Further, we cannot allow the process of court to be abused in such a fashion when the respondent did not show any possible prejudice and except making a bald statement that he would be prejudiced, there is no material before the Court. At any rate, as submitted by the respondent in his affidavit-in-reply dated 10.08.2015, complainant-Amol was examined on 28.07.2014 and was also been cross-examined. It appears that the case is again fixed for evidence, which means that the trial is likely to take much time since the complainant himself was examined and cross-examined one year and two months before. We, therefore, do not believe, as contended by Mr. Saboo, that the trial is likely to be completed. Even otherwise, we do not think that commencement of trial should mechanically result into stay of departmental enquiry, particularly in the cases of the employees caught red handed. 8. We, therefore, find that the respondent is working in the office of a quasi judicial authority. Saboo, that the trial is likely to be completed. Even otherwise, we do not think that commencement of trial should mechanically result into stay of departmental enquiry, particularly in the cases of the employees caught red handed. 8. We, therefore, find that the respondent is working in the office of a quasi judicial authority. He cannot be allowed to abuse the process of Court. The Tribunal fell in grave error in relying on the solitary paragraph of the judgment in Capt. M.Paul Anthony (supra) instead of looking into the subsequent judgments delivered by the Apex Court, clarifying the law laid down in the case of Capt. M.Paul Anthony. Instead of reproducing the decisions cited by learned A.G.P. for the petitioners, we would quote following observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) “8. …..What is, however, fairly well settled and was not disputed even before us is that there is no legal bar to the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings and a criminal trial simultaneously. 9. In A. P. SRTC v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya; (1997) 2 SCC 699 , this Court declared that the purpose underlying departmental proceedings is distinctly different from the purpose behind prosecution of offenders for commission of offences by them. While criminal prosecution for an offence is launched for violation of a duty that the offender owes to the society, departmental enquiry is aimed at maintaining discipline and efficiency in service. The difference in the standard of proof and the application of the rules of evidence to one and inapplicability to the other was also explained and highlighted only to explain that conceptually the two operate in different spheres and are intended to serve distinctly different purposes. 10. The relatively recent decision of this Court in Karnataka SRTC v. M.G. Vittal Rao (2012) 1 SCC 442 , is a timely reminder of the principles that are applicable in such situations succinctly summed up in the following words: “(i) There is no legal bar for both proceedings to go on simultaneously. (ii) The only valid ground for claiming that the disciplinary proceedings may be stayed would be to ensure that the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced. But even such grounds would be available only in cases involving complex questions of facts and law. (ii) The only valid ground for claiming that the disciplinary proceedings may be stayed would be to ensure that the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced. But even such grounds would be available only in cases involving complex questions of facts and law. (iii) Such defence ought not to be permitted to unnecessarily delay the departmental proceedings. The interest of the delinquent officer as well as the employer clearly lies in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. (iv) Departmental Proceedings can go on simultaneously to the criminal trial, except where both the proceedings are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common.” 11. to 12 ….. 13. …..It is also evident that while seriousness of the charge leveled against the employees is a consideration, the same is not by itself sufficient unless the case also involves complicated questions of law and fact. Even when the charge is found to be serious and complicated questions of fact and law that arise for consideration, the Court will have to keep in mind the fact that departmental proceedings cannot be suspended indefinitely or delayed unduly. 14. to 15. ….. 16. Suffice it to say that while there is no legal bar to the holding of the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal trial simultaneously, stay of disciplinary proceedings may be an advisable course in cases where the criminal charge against the employee is grave and continuance of the disciplinary proceedings is likely to prejudice their defense before the criminal Court. Gravity of the charge is, however, not by itself enough to determine the question unless the charge involves complicated question of law and fact. The Court examining the question must also keep in mind that criminal trials get prolonged indefinitely especially where the number of accused arraigned for trial is large as is the case at hand and so are the number of witnesses cited by the prosecution. The Court, therefore, has to draw a balance between the need for a fair trial to the accused on the one hand and the competing demand for an expeditious conclusion of the ongoing disciplinary proceedings on the other. An early conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings has itself been seen by this Court to be in the interest of the employees.” 9. An early conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings has itself been seen by this Court to be in the interest of the employees.” 9. We are fully convinced that the law laid down by the Apex Court as above is clearly applicable in the instant case. The impugned decision rendered by the MAT is not legal and correct. The MAT ought not to have taken lighter view in the case of corruption by an Accounts Officer like the respondent who was caught red handed while accepting bribe amount of Rs.500/. Attempt to nullify the rule of law through the process of court must be nipped in the bud. We are of the view that the departmental enquiry must be held and completed within a stipulated period irrespective of the progress of the criminal trial. Since the respondent has misused the process of court, we think an order of cost will have to be made. 10. In view of above, we pass the following order. ORDER (i) Writ Petition No.6594/2014 is allowed with costs in the sum of Rs.5000/payable by the respondent Raju Vishwanath Bhushanwar to the office of State Consumer Redressal Commission, Nagpur. (ii) The departmental enquiry against the respondent Raju Vishwanath Bhushanwar shall be completed as early as possible and, in any case, within a period of four months from today, failing which the concerned officer shall be held responsible for failure to act. Rule made absolute in the above terms.