JUDGMENT V.M. VELUMANI, J. 1. This Writ Petition has been filed for bearing the respondent from proceeding with the departmental proceedings pursuant to charge sheet in No. RO:TN:VIG:48:5, dated 14.05.2012, during the pendency of parallel Criminal Case in C.C. No. 234 of 2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Madurai. 2. The petitioner was working as a Head Cashier in Madurai Main Branch of the respondent Bank. One of his duty is to handover the money to the Company Officials of Private Agency viz., S.I.S. Agencies, for loading it in four ATM Counters in Madurai City. According to the petitioner, as per procedures, after taking cash from cash chest of Main Branch, sealed cash has to be re-counted and tied with jute thread and it should be handed over to the Officials of the Private Agency, viz., S.I.S. Agencies, for loading it in four ATM Counters in Madurai City. He was followed the procedure while handing over the money to the Officials of S.I.S. Agencies and obtained receipt for the same. 3. The said S.I.S. Agency gave a complaint to Subramaniapuram Police Station and the same has been registered in Crime No. 804 of 2011 for offences under Sections 409 and 420 IPC against the employees of S.I.S. Agency, viz., Vasantharajan and Manikandan stating that they have misappropriated a sum of Rs. 4,22,000/-. The petitioner further contended that another complaint was fraudulently registered on the file of Vilakkuthoon Police Station in Crime No. 1182 of 2011 against the petitioner alone for offences under Sections 409 and 420 IPC, for misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- on 29.08.2011 and the Police has filed a final report in C.C. No. 234 of 2011 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Madurai. 4. In pursuant to the Criminal Case, the petitioner was suspended on 08.10.2011 and the respondent initiated departmental proceedings on 01.12.2011. The petitioner gave explanation on 21.12.2011. The respondent without accepting the explanation, framed charges on 14.05.2012. According to the petitioner, the subject matter of criminal proceedings and the departmental proceedings are one and the same. If the departmental enquiry is proceeded with, he will be put to hardship and irreparable loss, as the same witnesses will be examined on both the departmental proceedings and the criminal proceedings. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition for the relief stated supra. 5. If the departmental enquiry is proceeded with, he will be put to hardship and irreparable loss, as the same witnesses will be examined on both the departmental proceedings and the criminal proceedings. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition for the relief stated supra. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following Judgments:- (i) Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited vs. Girish V. and Others, 2014 (3) SCC 636 , wherein in paragraph 10, it has been held as under:- 10. The relatively recent decision of this Court in Karnataka SRTC vs. M.G. Vittal Rao, 2012 (1) SCC 442 : 2012 (1) SCC (L&S) 171, 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 the 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. (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." (ii) P. Ravikumar vs. The Deputy General Manager, Disciplinary Authority, Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, Chennai and Another, 2012 (1) CWC 40 , wherein in paragraph 17, it has been held as under: "17. Thus, on comparison of the Charge Memo in the departmental proceedings as well as the final report filed in the Criminal Case, it is evidently clear that it is for one and same set of allegations that the petitioner has been proceeded with. The list of witnesses, who were to be examined on the side of the prosecution has been appended to the final report in S. Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are the prosecution witnesses, who have been examined in the departmental enquiry as M.W.1 to M.W.3. The list of witnesses, who were to be examined on the side of the prosecution has been appended to the final report in S. Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are the prosecution witnesses, who have been examined in the departmental enquiry as M.W.1 to M.W.3. Further, from the Enquiry Officer's report, it is seen that 17 documents were marked and out of the 17 documents, 5 documents have also been marked and relied on in the Criminal proceedings. There is one hand written note in the final report stating that the remaining documents are in the custody of the Officers of the Respondents-Bank." 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent argued that there is no bar for the respondent to proceed with departmental enquiry, even when the Criminal Case is pending. He further contended that the charges levelled against the petitioner in the departmental proceedings are entirely different from that of charges in the Criminal Case. The learned counsel for the respondent also argued that there is no complicated question of fact involved and the stand of the petitioner in the Criminal Case will not be prejudiced. 7. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the respondent relied on the following Judgments: (i) C. Jayachandra Babu vs. Commissioner of Police, Salem, W.P. No. 29414 of 2014, dated 12.11.2014, wherein, in paragraphs 4 and 5, it has been held as follows:- "4. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the on going departmental proceedings. There is no bar in law, the departmental proceedings is required to be either set aside or kept in abeyance merely because the criminal case has been registered. Admittedly, the trial is yet to begin and the charge sheet is also yet to be taken on file before the jurisdictional Court. There is no legal bar for the disciplinary proceedings and criminal trial to proceed simultaneously which stage is also yet to come. The petitioner has not produced any material to show the likelihood of prejudice. Similarly there is no bar for the Department relied upon the materials collected during the investigation in a criminal case both documentary and orally. This Court does not find any complicated issue of law or fact. 5. The petitioner has not produced any material to show the likelihood of prejudice. Similarly there is no bar for the Department relied upon the materials collected during the investigation in a criminal case both documentary and orally. This Court does not find any complicated issue of law or fact. 5. Considering the very same issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Girish V. and Others reported in 2014 (3) SCC 636 was pleased to held as follows:- "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 Supreme Today With All High Courts Page 4 of 6 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 on-going 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." (ii) Jayalakshmi vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Labour and Employment Department, Chennai and Another, W.P. No. 22311 of 2014, dated 10.10.2014, wherein in paragraph 5, it has been held as follows:- "5. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. I had an occasion to consider the very same issue in the judgment reported in 2013 (4) MLJ 354 in the matter of V. Pandia Rajan vs. Chief Security Commissioner, and after referring to Capt. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. I had an occasion to consider the very same issue in the judgment reported in 2013 (4) MLJ 354 in the matter of V. Pandia Rajan vs. Chief Security Commissioner, and after referring to Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another reported in AIR 1999 SC 1416 and the Deputy Inspector General of Police and Another vs. S. Samuthiram, (2013) 1 LW 319 and Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. M.G. Vittal Rao, (2012) 1 SCC 442 , I held that when the scope of enquiry in both the proceedings are different, both the proceedings can be proceeded simultaneously and there is no question of deferring the departmental proceedings, when there is no complicated question of law involved in the departmental proceedings." (iii) State of West Bengal and Others vs. Sankar Ghosh, AIR 2014 SC 405 , wherein in paragraphs 14 to 18, it has been held as follows:- "14. In Deputy Inspector General vs. S. Samuthiram, 2013 (1) SCC 598 : AIR 2013 SC 14 : 2013 AIR SCW 6484, this Court in paragraphs 24, 25 and 26 of the judgment has elaborately examined the meaning and scope of the honourable acquittal and held as follows: "26. As we have already indicated, in the absence of any provision in the Service Rules for reinstatement, if an employee is honourably acquitted by a criminal court, no right is conferred on the employee to claim any benefit including reinstatement. Reason is that the standard of proof required for holding a person guilty by a criminal court and the enquiry conducted by way of disciplinary proceeding is entirely different. In a criminal case, the onus of establishing the guilt of the accused is on the prosecution and if it fails to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is assumed to be innocent. It is settled law that the strict burden of proof required to establish guilt in a criminal court is not required in a disciplinary proceedings and preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. There may be cases where a person is acquitted for technical reasons or the prosecution giving up other witnesses since few of the other witnesses turned hostile, etc. It is settled law that the strict burden of proof required to establish guilt in a criminal court is not required in a disciplinary proceedings and preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. There may be cases where a person is acquitted for technical reasons or the prosecution giving up other witnesses since few of the other witnesses turned hostile, etc. In the case on hand the prosecution did not take steps to examine many of the crucial witnesses on the ground that the complainant and his wife turned hostile. The court, therefore, acquitted the accused giving the benefit of doubt. We are not prepared to say that in the instant case, the respondent was honourably acquitted by the criminal court and even if it is so, he is not entitled to claim reinstatement since the Tamil Nadu Service Rules do not provide so." 15. The judgment of S. Samuthiram [supra] was later followed by another Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Police, New Delhi & Another vs. Mehar Singh, 2013 (7) SCC 685 : AIR 2013 SC 2861 : 2013 AIR SCW 4191. 16. We indicate that the respondent could not lay his hand to any rule or regulation applicable to the Police Force stating that once an employee has been acquitted by a Criminal Court, as a matter of right, he should be reinstated in service, despite all the disciplinary proceedings. In otherwise there is no rule of automatic reinstatement on acquittal by a Criminal Court even though the charges levelled against the delinquent before the Enquiry Officer as well as the Criminal Court are the same. On this aspect, reference may be made to para 27 of the judgment in S. Samuthiram [supra], which reads as under: "27. We have also come across cases where the Service Rules provide that on registration of a criminal case, an employee can be kept under suspension and on acquittal by the criminal court, he be reinstated. In such cases, the reinstatement is automatic. There may be cases where the Service Rules provide that in spite of domestic enquiry, if the criminal court acquits an employee honourably, he could be reinstated. In other words, the issue whether an employee has to be reinstated in service or not depends upon the question whether the Service Rules contain any such provision for reinstatement and not as a matter of right. In other words, the issue whether an employee has to be reinstated in service or not depends upon the question whether the Service Rules contain any such provision for reinstatement and not as a matter of right. Such provisions are absent in the Tamil Nadu Service Rules." 17. Regulation 4 of Chapter 19 of the Police Regulations of Calcutta, 1968, which is applicable to the case in hand, specifically provides that acquittal or discharge in a criminal proceeding shall not be a bar to award punishment in a departmental proceeding in respect of the same cause or matter. The said Regulation is extracted below for easy reference: "4. Discharge or acquittal not a bar to departmental punishment — An order of discharge or acquittal of a Police Officer shall not be a bar to the award of departmental punishment to that officer in respect of the same cause or matter." 18. The above rule indicates that even if there is identity of charges levelled against the respondent before the Criminal Court as well as before the Enquiry Officer, an order of discharge or acquittal of a police officer by a Criminal Court shall not be a bar to the award of the departmental punishment. The Tribunal as well as the High Court have not considered the above-mentioned provision and have committed a mistake in holding that since the respondent was acquitted by a Criminal Court of the same charges reinstatement was automatic. We find it difficult to support the finding recorded by the Tribunal which was confirmed by the High Court. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the order of the Tribunal, which was affirmed by the High Court. However, there will be no order as to costs." 8. Heard Mr. Veerakathiravan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pala Ramasamy, learned counsel for the respondent. 9. I have considered all the materials on record, pleadings, arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent and the Judgments relied on by them. 10. However, there will be no order as to costs." 8. Heard Mr. Veerakathiravan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pala Ramasamy, learned counsel for the respondent. 9. I have considered all the materials on record, pleadings, arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent and the Judgments relied on by them. 10. From the Judgments referred to above, it is clear that:- (a) there is no bar for both the criminal proceedings and the departmental enquiry being proceeded simultaneously; (b) the departmental enquiry can be stayed only when the interest of the charged employees would be affected in the criminal case, if the departmental enquiry is simultaneously proceeded with; (c) if both the criminal case and the departmental proceedings are based on the same set of facts, same set of witness will depose and complicated law and facts are involved, the departmental proceedings can be stayed pending conclusion of the Criminal Case; (d) if the conclusion of the Criminal Case is prolonged, it will be open to the employer to proceed with the departmental enquiry. 11. From the pleadings, the charge sheet in the criminal proceedings and the charges in the departmental proceedings, it is seen that the charges in the Criminal Case and the departmental proceedings are different. In the Criminal Case, the petitioner is charged for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 IPC. 12. In the departmental proceedings, the following charges are framed: "(i) You misused your position as a Head Cashier of the Branch thereby causing wilful damage to the property of the Bank and its customers, a gross misconduct under BPS dated 10.04.2002 and amended from time to time. (ii) You have committed fraud, indulged in mortal turpitude and misappropriated Bank Customers' money. (iii) Your deceitful action in having abetted misappropriation and embezzlement of Customers' deposits under Clause 5(1) of BPS, dated 10.04.2002 and amended from time to time. (iv) You did acts prejudicial to the interests of the Bank - a gross misconduct under Clause 5(d) and 5(j) of BPS, dated 10.04.2002, and amended from time to time." 13. A close reading of the materials on record would show that no complicated questions of law and facts are involved in the present case and the petitioner has not produced any material to show the likelihood of prejudice. A close reading of the materials on record would show that no complicated questions of law and facts are involved in the present case and the petitioner has not produced any material to show the likelihood of prejudice. Therefore, I hold that the departmental proceedings can be proceeded with, as scope of enquiry in the Criminal Case and the departmental proceedings are different and there is no complicated question of law involved in the Criminal Case and the petitioner has not proved the prejudice, which may caused to him, if the departmental proceedings proceeded with pending Criminal Case. 14. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.