ORDER : Nirmaljit Kaur, J. The prayer in the present petition is to stay the disciplinary proceedings in pursuance to the charge-sheet dated 07.02.2014 issued by respondent No.2 till the finalisation of the criminal case pending against the petitioner in the court of Additional District Judge No.2, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No. 78/2013. 2. An FIR was registered against the petitioner while he was working as Constable in Reserve Police Line, Chittorgarh. The FIR was registered against him under Sections 395, 118, 119, 213, 120-B and 414 of the IPC on account of the fact that on 18th July, 2013, he along with other accused stopped the Truck bearing registration No.RJ-14 GB 1844 and after threatening the driver looted the doda chura. The charges were framed against the petitioner in the said criminal case. The petitioner challenged the said order of framing charge before the High Court in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.382/2014. The revision petition was rejected vide order dated 16th April, 2014. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested and is presently lodged in the District Jail at Chittorgarh. Meanwhile, charge-sheet has been issued against the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 on 7th February, 2014. The revision petition was rejected vide order dated 16th April, 2014. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested and is presently lodged in the District Jail at Chittorgarh. Meanwhile, charge-sheet has been issued against the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 on 7th February, 2014. The said charges read as under:- ^^1- ;g fd fnukad 18-07-2013 dks vki vU; O;fDr;ksa ds lkFk feydj Vªd uEcj vkj0ts0 14@th0ch0@1844 dks jksd Vªd esa Hkjs voS/k MksMk pwjk dks ywV dj [kqnZ cqnZ djus o MªkbZoj xqjesy flag o mlds lg;ksxh dk vigj.k dj Hkksikylkxj ds ikl NksM+ fn;k x;kA vki ,d voS/k dkjksckj ,oa vkijkf/kd d`R; esa lafyIr ik;sA tks vkidk d`R; ?kksj ykijokgh dk gSA 2- ;g fd vki ,d yksd lsod gksrs gq, voS/k dkjksckj ,oa vkijkf/kd d`R; esa fyIr ik;s x;sA vkidk drZO; Fkk fd vijk/k dh jksdFkke fd;s tkus gsrq mPp vf/kdkfj;ksa dks lwpuk nsdj dkuwu lEer dk;Zokgh djokuk Fkk tks ugha dh xbZ rFkk vijk/k djus dh ifjdYiuk dks Nqikuk o vijk/k ds izfrQyLo:i migkj ds :i esa :i;s ysuk o pqjkbZ@MdSrh dh gqbZ MksMk pwjk dks [kqnZ cqnZ djus esa vijkf/k;ksa dh lgk;rk dh gSA tks vkidk d`R; M~;wVh ds izfr ykijokgh ,oa uSfrdrk ds izfr xSj ftEesnkjkuk dk d`R; gSA 3- ;g fd fnukad 20-07-2013 dks vki vU; O;fDr;ksa ds lkFk feydj Vªd uEcj vkj0ts0 07@th@3566 dks jksd Vªd esa Hkjs voS/k MksMk pwjk dks ywV dj [kqnZ cwnZ djus o MªkbZoj ukjk;.k yky lkyoh o mlds lg;ksxh dk vigj.k dj mUgsa usofj;k xkao ds vkxs NksM+ fn;k x;kA vki ,d voS/k dkjksckj ,oa vkijkf/kd d`R; esa lafyIr ik;sA tks vkidk d`R; ?kksj ykijokgh dk gSA 4- ;g fd vkids yksdlsod gksrs gq, vkids fo:) xaHkhj nqjkpj.k ds vkijkf/kd izdj.k iathc) gq, ,oa vijkf/k;ksa ls lkaBxkaB dhA ftlls vke turk esa iqfyl dh Nfo /kwfey gqbZA 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while praying for the relief mentioned above contended that the allegations in the charge-sheet issued by the department and the FIR are identical. In case, the petitioner is compelled to disclose his defence in the disciplinary proceedings, he may be prejudiced in the criminal case. The witnesses and the evidence are also same. 4. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Tata Oil Mills Co. In case, the petitioner is compelled to disclose his defence in the disciplinary proceedings, he may be prejudiced in the criminal case. The witnesses and the evidence are also same. 4. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen, reported in AIR 1965 SC 155 as well as the judgment in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Anr., reported in AIR 1999 SC 1416 . 5. Reply has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the parties are heard. 7. Reliance was placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Tata Oil Miles Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen (supra) to argue that the domestic enquiry should be stayed pending the final disposal of the criminal case because in such a case it would be unfair to compel the workman to disclose the defence which he may take before the criminal court. The said judgment does not help the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner in that case came to the court for quashing of the finding of the Enquiry Officer on the ground that domestic enquiry has proceeded in spite of the pendency of the criminal trial. The Court dismissed the appeal qua workmen by holding that domestic enquiry was properly held and fairly conducted and therefore, the enquiry for that reason alone cannot be vitiated. 8. The judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra), too, does not help. In the said case, the raid conducted at the residence of the appellant in that case and recovery of incriminating articles from him was the basis of the departmental enquiry. The said charges were proved by the Police Officers and Panch witnesses who had raided the house of the appellant and had effected recovery. On the basis of the statements of these witnesses, the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the charges were established. The same witnesses were examined in the criminal case and in pursuance to which the appellant in that case was acquitted and therefore, it was under these circumstances that the Hon'ble Supreme Court concluded as under:- "35. On the basis of the statements of these witnesses, the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the charges were established. The same witnesses were examined in the criminal case and in pursuance to which the appellant in that case was acquitted and therefore, it was under these circumstances that the Hon'ble Supreme Court concluded as under:- "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." 9. Whereas in the present case, the petitioner being a member of a very disciplined service engaged himself in committing offence along with some history-sheeters against whom number of criminal cases are registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and also under the NDPS Act. As per the allegation, the petitioner instead of discharging his duties indulged himself in serious criminal offences and helped the dacoits in disposing the looted doda chura and also indulged in receiving gifts and money in lieu thereof. Moreover, the F.I.R. under Sections 395, 118, 119, 213, 120-B & 414 of the IPC was registered against the petitioner. 10. On the other hand, the statement of allegations, in the case of disciplinary proceedings under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 placed on record show that the charges also involved dereliction of his duties being a public servant and his involvement in serious illegal acts resulting in shaking the faith of Police in the eyes of general public. The said illegal acts of the petitioner have damaged the image of the Police and the same as per the Departmental Rules are punishable. Thus, the said illegal acts of the petitioner while discharging his duty were also made the basis of issuing the charge-sheet. 11. The Supreme Court in the case of M/s Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd. v. Girish V and Ors., reported in (2014) 3 SCC 636 , after considering the various judgments as well as aforesaid judgment rendered in the case of Capt. 11. The Supreme Court in the case of M/s Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd. v. Girish V and Ors., reported in (2014) 3 SCC 636 , after considering the various judgments as well as aforesaid judgment rendered in the case of Capt. M.Paul Anthony (supra) held that there was no legal bar to the holding of both the proceedings simultaneously unless there is likelihood of the employee suffering prejudice in a criminal trial. In fact, the Supreme Court went on to hold in para 13 as under:- "13. 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 defence 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 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. 14. The charges levelled against the respondents in the instant case are under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 356, 427, 504, 506, 114 read with Section 149 I.P.C. These are no ordinary offences being punishable with imprisonment which may extend upto 3 years besides fine. At the same time seriousness of the charge alone is not the test. What is also required to be demonstrated by the respondents is that the case involves complicated questions of law and fact. That requirement does not appear to be satisfied in an adequate measure to call for an unconditional and complete stay of the disciplinary proceedings pending conclusion of the trial. What is also required to be demonstrated by the respondents is that the case involves complicated questions of law and fact. That requirement does not appear to be satisfied in an adequate measure to call for an unconditional and complete stay of the disciplinary proceedings pending conclusion of the trial. The incident as reported in the first information report or as projected by the respondents in the suits filed by them does not suggest any complication or complexity either on facts or law." 12. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid M/s Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd.’s case (supra) in fact held that disciplinary proceedings cannot remain stayed for an indefinitely long period and also did not vacate the stay order straightway but stayed the criminal proceedings only for one year to enable the trial court to complete the criminal proceedings as under:- "In case, however, the trial is not completed within the period of one year from the date of this order, despite the steps which the trial court has been directed to take the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondents shall be resumed and concluded by the Inquiry Officer concerned. The impugned orders shall in that case stand vacated upon expiry of the period of one year from the date of the order." 13. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena and Ors., reported in AIR 1997 SC 13 , too, while directing that the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent employee shall go on expeditiously without waiting for the result of the criminal proceedings held that there is "no legal bar for both proceedings to go on simultaneously, however, in certain situations, it may not be 'desirable', 'advisable' or 'appropriate' to proceed with the disciplinary enquiry when a criminal case is pending on identical charges. The staying of disciplinary proceedings is a matter to be determined having regard to the facts and circumstances of a given case and no hard and fast rules can be enunciated in that behalf. The only valid ground for staying the disciplinary proceedings is "that the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced. This may be done in cases of grave nature involving questions of fact and law. In means that not only the charges must be grave but that the case must involve complicated questions of law and fact. This may be done in cases of grave nature involving questions of fact and law. In 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." 14. From the above discussion, it is evident that the facts and the complexity of the case should be taken into consideration besides, the stage of the case and whether the allegation and the evidence are identical before staying the departmental proceedings. While applying the law laid down in the aforementioned cases, it may be noted that in the case in hand, the allegations against the petitioner, although, serious but do not involve any complicated issue. He is a member of disciplined Force. He had looted a truck on the highway containing contraband and also helped the other accused who are history-sheeters to escape in spite of the fact that it was his duty as a public servant to inform about the commission of the offence. Moreover, the charges were framed in FIR No.186/2013 way back on 04.03.2014. The revision petition filed against the order of framing charge was dismissed by the High Court on 16.04.2016. The progress made by the trial court has not been pointed out to this Court. In fact, as per the charge-sheet filed against the petitioner, investigation against the other accused was kept pending under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. Thus, it is obvious that the criminal case will take a long time. Even otherwise, the respondents have specifically stated in their reply that the witnesses in both the proceedings are different except two persons, namely, Anil Joshi and Surendra Singh Ranawat. Before the Departmental proceedings, the allegations are also with respect to the dereliction of his duty being a public servant involved in serious illegal acts resulting in the damage of the image of the Police as well. Strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental proceedings. Moreover, the degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency. The rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. Strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental proceedings. Moreover, the degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency. The rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused "beyond reasonable doubt", he cannot be convicted by a court of law. In a departmental enquiry, on the other hands, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of preponderance of probability. 15. Hence, taking into consideration all aspects mentioned above as also keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial in the present case is not likely to conclude in the near future, the departmental proceedings cannot be kept pending for long. Accordingly, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the present writ petition as under:- 1. The Department shall not proceed with the departmental enquiry till the time the petitioner is in judicial custody; 2. The disciplinary proceedings shall commence immediately after the release of the petitioner on bail. 16. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of in the above terms.