JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. 1. Heard Sri Irfan Ahmad Malik for the petitioner. 2. The writ petition has been filed for staying the departmental disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Rule 14 (1) of Uttar Pradesh Police Officer of Sub-ordinate Ranks, (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') in pursuance of the departmental charge sheet dated 22.6.2016 till pendency of criminal case i.e. Case Crime No.609 of 2016, P.S. Kavinagar, Ghaziabad. 3. The petitioner was appointed in Uttar Pradesh Police on the post of Constable in the year 2005. Disciplinary proceeding under Rule 14 of the Rules has been initiated against the petitioner vide Charge Sheet dated 22.6.2016. The charge against the petitioner is that the petitioner was a regular student in Junior High School, Sarsainawar, Etawah attached to Lala Siyaram Inter College, Sarsainawar, Etawah where his date of birth was mentioned as 5.9.1978. The petitioner appeared in High School Examination as a regular student from the aforesaid college and could not succeed. Thereafter he appeared as a private student in High School Examination and mentioned his date of birth as 5.9.1985 in which he passed. On the basis of High School Certificate as well as date of birth mentioned in it as 5.9.1985, he was selected as Constable Civil Police U.P. Thus the petitioner has filed a fabricated certificate in respect of his date of birth and his appointment is illegal. It may be mentioned here that on the same allegation an FIR was also lodged on 18.5.2016 which was registered as Case Crime No. 0609 of 2016 under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, PS Kavinagar, Distt. Ghaziabad. 4. Counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines, Ltd. (1999) 3 SCC 679 submits that as criminal and departmental proceeding are based upon same charges as such during pendency of criminal case, departmental proceeding be stayed. 5. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner. 6. Supreme Court in, State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena, (1996) 6 SCC 417 , held that there is no legal bar for both proceedings to go on simultaneously and then say that 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. 6. Supreme Court in, State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena, (1996) 6 SCC 417 , held that there is no legal bar for both proceedings to go on simultaneously and then say that 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, it is emphasised, is a matter to be determined having regard to the facts and circumstances of a given case and that no hard and fast rules can be enunciated in that behalf. The only ground suggested in the above decisions as constituting a valid ground for staying the disciplinary proceedings is that "the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced". This ground has, however, been hedged in by providing further that this may be done in cases of grave nature involving questions of fact and law. In our respectful opinion, it 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. It is only a factor which will go into the scales while judging the advisability or desirability of staying the disciplinary proceedings. One of the contending considerations is that the disciplinary enquiry cannot be -- and should not be -- delayed unduly. So far as criminal cases are concerned, it is well known that they drag on endlessly where high officials or persons holding high public offices are involved. They get bogged down on one or the other ground. They hardly ever reach a prompt conclusion. That is the reality in spite of repeated advice and admonitions from this Court and the High Courts. If a criminal case is unduly delayed that may itself be a good ground for going ahead with the disciplinary enquiry even where the disciplinary proceedings are held over at an earlier stage. The interests of administration and good government demand that these proceedings are concluded expeditiously. It must be remembered that interests of administration demand that undesirable elements are thrown out and any charge of misdemeanour is enquired into promptly. The interests of administration and good government demand that these proceedings are concluded expeditiously. It must be remembered that interests of administration demand that undesirable elements are thrown out and any charge of misdemeanour is enquired into promptly. The disciplinary proceedings are meant not really to punish the guilty but to keep the administrative machinery unsullied by getting rid of bad elements. The interest of the delinquent officer also lies in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. If he is not guilty of the charges, his honour should be vindicated at the earliest possible moment and if he is guilty, he should be dealt with promptly according to law. It is not also in the interest of administration that persons accused of serious misdemeanour should be continued in office indefinitely, i.e., for long periods awaiting the result of criminal proceedings. It is not in the interest of administration. It only serves the interest of the guilty and dishonest. While it is not possible to enumerate the various factors, for and against the stay of disciplinary proceedings, we found it necessary to emphasise some of the important considerations in view of the fact that very often the disciplinary proceedings are being stayed for long periods pending criminal proceedings. Stay of disciplinary proceedings cannot be, and should not be, a matter of course. All the relevant factors, for and against, should be weighed and a decision taken keeping in view the various principles laid down in the decisions referred to above. 7. Supreme Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines, Ltd. (1999) 3 SCC 679 has laid down the following broad principles in the facts and circumstances of a given case : - "(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 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. (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 is found guilty, administration may get rid of him at the earliest." 8. Supreme Court in Karanataka SRTC Vs. M.G. Vittal Rao, (2012), 1 SCC 442 held that it is a timely reminder of the principles that 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 the cases involving complex questions of facts and law. (iii) Such defence ought not be permitted to unnecessary delay the departmental proceedings. The interest of the delinquent officer as as well as the employer clearly lies in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. But even such grounds would be available only in the cases involving complex questions of facts and law. (iii) Such defence ought not be permitted to unnecessary delay the departmental proceedings. The interest of the delinquent officer as 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 same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common." Similar view has been taken in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan Vs. B.K. Meena, (2004) 7 SCC 442 and Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. Vs. Girish, (2014) 3 SCC 636 . 9. So far as the criminal case is concerned, in practice criminal case may take several years while allegation against the petitioner that his appointment is based on forged certificate, which is illegal. In case the disciplinary proceeding is stayed during pendency of criminal case, the petitioner will derive advantage of his mischievous act which will cause material prejudice to the department. As such disciplinary proceeding is not liable to be stayed. 10. The writ petition has no merit and it is dismissed.