JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. 1. Challenging the legality and propriety of the letter bearing reference no.CCL/VIG/RDA-2012/16/16-17/1752 dated 07.10.2016 issued by respondent no.1, whereby respondent has rejected the memorandum of the petitioner as unsatisfactory and directed an enquiry to be held by appointing the enquiring authority, the instant writ application has been filed for quashing the same and further relief has been sought for quashing the memorandum of charges as contained in letter bearing reference No.CCL/VIG/RDA-12/16/16-17/550 dated 30.05.2016 pertaining to memorandum of charges of accepting of illegal gratification. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts as disclosed in the writ application is that while the petitioner was posted as Mining Manager in Gidi-C Collier, Argada Area, a written complaint was lodged by one Awadhesh Kumar Upadhyay posted as Assistant Store Keeper before the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Ranchi alleging demand of illegal gratification by the petitioner. Upon such complaint, the Sub-Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Ranchi along with the complainant arrived at about 11.15 A.M on 15.12.2015 at the workshop where it is alleged that the petitioner demanded money from the complainant @ Rs.2500/- per week and the first instalment to be paid on 16.12.2015. The said conversation between the complainant and the petitioner was over heard by the Sub-inspector of Police and basing upon such facts, the CBI registered FIR, vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition bearing No. RC 13(A)/2015 R dated 16.12.2015 under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, 1988. The petitioner was arrested on 18.12.2015 and remained in judicial custody till he was granted regular bail vide order dated 25.02.2016 passed in B.A. No.1170 of 2016. In pursuance to registration of F.I.R., a trap team was constituted on 17.12.2015 and the petitioner was caught red handed at around 12.015 hours. Because of remaining in judicial custody, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 31.12.2015 and said suspension was revoked vide order dated 04.06.2016. The petitioner was served with memorandum of charges under Rule 29 of the Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rule, 1978 (amended up to April 2000) of CIL and the petitioner submitted his representation dated 23.06.2016 for grant of time and the copies of the documents referred to in the charge for furnishing his defence. The petitioner was served with memorandum of charges under Rule 29 of the Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rule, 1978 (amended up to April 2000) of CIL and the petitioner submitted his representation dated 23.06.2016 for grant of time and the copies of the documents referred to in the charge for furnishing his defence. On 08.08.2016 respondent no.1 in reference to Rule 29.3 of the CDA Rules refused to provide the document and only permitted the petitioner for inspection and to submit his response within 15 days thereafter. On 19.08.2016 the petitioner inspected the documents and on 6.09.2016 the petitioner submitted letter to respondent no.1 endorsing and reiterating his reply submitted on 23.06.2016 and respondent no.1 vide letter dated 07.10.2016 rejected the representation of the petitioner as unsatisfactory and further ordered the enquiry to be proceeded by appointment of the inquiring authority. Vide letter dated 07.10.2016 the respondent no.1 appointed the presenting officer and in pursuance to the appointment of the enquiry officer, the inquiry officer directed the petitioner to appear on 01.11.2016 for participating in the proceeding. On 21.10.2016, noticed was issued to the petitioner, whereby date of enquiry was scheduled on 01.11.2016 was postponed to 29.10.2016 for reasons sated therein and in the meantime CBI has completed its investigation and submitted his charge sheet no.02/2016 on 12.02.2016. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner during course of hearing has submitted with vehemence that perusal of charge sheet dated 12.02.2016 and the memorandum of charges dated 30.05.2016 would indicate that the documentary and the oral evidences in the departmental proceeding are same and identical to the criminal case. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner advanced his argument that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Another reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 more particularly referring to paragraph 22 of the aforesaid judgment has submitted that departmental proceeding ought to be stayed till conclusion of the criminal case. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Another reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 more particularly referring to paragraph 22 of the aforesaid judgment has submitted that departmental proceeding ought to be stayed till conclusion of the criminal case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that memorandum of charges dated 30.05.2016 as contained in Annexure-2/1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 29.11.2016 that the statement of article of charges have been instituted against the petitioner for illegal gratification under Rule 4 and 5 of the Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978 of CIL (amended up to April 2000) also tantamount to misconduct to the said rules for the alleged omission and commission on the part of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the departmental proceedings the documents which have been relied upon are also the same documents which have been relied by the CBI and the list of witnesses as contained in article of charges are part and parcel of the trap case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that another glaring infirmity in the departmental proceeding is that witnesses at serial no.6 and 8 namely P. K. Burman and Goni Singh, who are not in the list of witnesses of CBI cases, have been examined in the departmental proceeding. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to supplementary affidavit dated 07.12.2016 has submitted that in case of another employee, departmental proceeding was kept in abeyance till finalization of the criminal case by the order of the Chairman cum Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfield Ltd., therefore, the case of the petitioner being of similar nature, the disciplinary authority should not adopt any discriminatory treatment so far as similarly placed employees are concerned. 4. In order to buttress his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2006) 5 SCC 446 (G.M Tank vs. State of Gujarat and Ors.) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe that once in a criminal case the charges is not proved, it would be unjust and unfair rather oppressive to allow the findings in the departmental proceeding to stand. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2012) 13 SCC 142 (Avinash Sadashiv Bhosale vs. Union of India and Ors.) wherein in paragraph 54, the Hon’ble Apex Court by making reference to almost all the previous precedents reiterated the legal position as follows: “54.1. There is no legal bar for both proceedings to go on simultaneously. 54.2. 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 question of facts and law. 54.3. Such defence ought not to be permitted to unnecessarily delay the departmental proceeding. The interest of the delinquent officer as well as the employer clearly lies in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. 54.4. 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.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2005) 10 SCC 471 (Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Ors vs. Sarvesh Berry), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has reiterated the views of the judgment, reported in case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra). But the Hon’ble Apex Court at the same time was of the view that “there can be no straitjacket formula as to in which case the departmental proceedings are to be stayed. There may be cases where the trial of the case gets prolonged by the dilatory method adopted by the delinquent official. He cannot be permitted to, on one hand, prolong the criminal case and at the same time contend that the departmental proceedings should be stayed on the ground that the criminal case is pending.” 6. Controverting the averments made in the writ application a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. He cannot be permitted to, on one hand, prolong the criminal case and at the same time contend that the departmental proceedings should be stayed on the ground that the criminal case is pending.” 6. Controverting the averments made in the writ application a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents-CCL by referring paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit, has assiduously submitted that contention of the petitioner that he would be seriously prejudiced if the departmental proceedings are allowed to continue and not kept in abeyance during the pendency of the criminal case having same and similar charges as he will have to disclose his defence is totally unfounded and misconceived in view of series of judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in: (i) (2004) 7 SCC 442 Kendriya Vidyalalya Sangathan & Ors. vs. T. Srinivas. (ii) 2005 (1) JCR 111 (iii) 2008 (2) JCR 25 7. Apart from that learned counsel for the respondents has referred a number of judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in: (i) (1999) 3 SCC 679 (Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines). (ii) (1997) 7 SCC 514 (UOI & Ors. vs. Ramesh Kumar). (iii) (2006) 2 SCC 584 (South Bengal State Transport Corporation vs. Span Kumar Mitra & Ors.). (iv) (2007) 10 SCC 385 (Noida Entrepreneurs Association vs. Noida and Ors.) (v) (2005) 10 SCC 471 (Hindustan Petroleum Corporation & Ors. vs. Sarvesh Berry). (vi) (2012) 13 SCC 142 (Avinash Sadashiv Bhosle vs. Union of India and Ors.) (vii) (2014) 3 SCC 636 , Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. vs. Girish V. and Ors.). 8. Learned counsel for the respondents has strenuously urged that from perusal of the charge sheet it is evident that there are fourteen charge sheeted witnesses apart from nine documents and eight material objects. On the contrary in the departmental proceedings there are only four witnesses and two documents in support of the charges. It is therefore denied that in the criminal case as well in the departmental proceeding there are same set of evidences/witnesses and from the memorandum dated 30.05.2016 contained in Annexure -2/1 of supplementary affidavit, it is apparent that the misconduct alleged against the petitioner are under 5.0(2), 5.0(5), 5.0(17), 5.0(26) of the Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978. It is therefore denied that in the criminal case as well in the departmental proceeding there are same set of evidences/witnesses and from the memorandum dated 30.05.2016 contained in Annexure -2/1 of supplementary affidavit, it is apparent that the misconduct alleged against the petitioner are under 5.0(2), 5.0(5), 5.0(17), 5.0(26) of the Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978. The misconduct alleged against the petitioner in the departmental proceeding is therefore distinct and different to the charges in the criminal case. Moreover, there is absolutely no legal bar for both criminal as well as the departmental proceedings to proceed simultaneously. 9. From the aforesaid pleadings of the respective parties, the point involves for determination as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the departmental proceeding ought to be stayed till disposal of the CBI case or in other words the departmental proceeding initiated on the same set of facts and identical charges should await the conclusion of criminal proceeding. The aforesaid legal proposition has drawn the attention of the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments. 10. Before adverting to the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it would be apposite to refer to the factual matrix in the present case: (I) No doubt, the departmental proceeding has been initiated as a sequel to the CBI case where the charge sheet has been submitted in the court of learned Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi under Section 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. But, the number of charge sheet witnesses relied upon in CBI case is quite large in number compared to the witness and document relied upon in the departmental proceeding. Apart from identical charges, the conduct part of the petitioner is a matter of adjudication in the departmental proceeding, since Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rule, 1978 is attracted for alleged violation of the aforesaid Rules, which tantamount to misconduct for the omissions and commissions and illegal gratification, therefore, the charges in the departmental proceeding and the criminal proceeding cannot be categorized as same and identical. (II) That departmental proceeding is based on preponderance of probability and the same is based on strict compliance of Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rule of the respondent company whereas the standard of proof in a criminal proceeding is proof beyond reasonable doubts and the element of mens rea has to be established in the matter of criminal prosecution to bring home the charges beyond all reasonable doubt. 11. Coming to the legal proposition of law as enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in series of judgments, the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Another reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 which has been referred to, in almost all subsequent judgments and the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra) at paragraph 22, reads as under: “22. The conclusion which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are: (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. (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 or 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. (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 any early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest.” 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Avinash Sadashiv Bhosale vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2012) 13 SCC 142 after taking note of previous judgments has reiterated the legal position, which is as under: (i) There is no legal bar for both proceeding 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 question of fact 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 with 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. 13. The judgment rendered in case of Pradip Kumar Singh vs. BCCL reported in 2008(2) JCR 25 (Jhr.) and in the case of Krishna Mohan Prasad vs. CCL & Ors. reported in 2005 (1) JCR 111 (Jhr.), this Court after referring to various judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court have been pleased to hold that there is no legal bar for both criminal as well as the departmental proceedings to proceed simultaneously. 14. reported in 2005 (1) JCR 111 (Jhr.), this Court after referring to various judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court have been pleased to hold that there is no legal bar for both criminal as well as the departmental proceedings to proceed simultaneously. 14. On perusal of the various judgments cited by the respective parties, there can be no quarrel over the proposition that departmental proceeding and criminal proceeding can continue simultaneously and there is no straitjacket and hard and fast rule to stay the departmental proceeding in case of a trap case of illegal gratification where there is involvement of complicated question of facts and law. But, in the instant case, apart from the departmental proceeding which was instituted as a sequel to the criminal case by the CBI on illegal gratification, and under Rule 4 and 5 of the Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978, meant for the employees of the Coal India Ltd., pertains to maintaining integrity and devotion of duty and breach of such rules, would tantamount to misconduct and the charge of taking bribes or illegal gratification is misconduct under said Rule 5, which would be decided in the disciplinary proceeding. Therefore, in my considered view, the departmental proceeding against the petitioner cannot be stayed on the pretext of pendency of a criminal case of the similar nature. 15. Viewed thus, the writ application sans merit is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.