ORDER : Virender Singh, J. 1. Aggrieved of the impugned order dated 20th May 2016 whereby the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 2439 of 2016 stands dismissed, the appellant-writ petitioner (hereinafter to be referred to as petitioner) has preferred the instant appeal with a further prayer for stay of the departmental proceedings initiated against him vide charge sheet dated 17th December 2015. 2. Admittedly, 5 criminal cases have been registered against the petitioner by the Central Bureau of Investigation on the basis of a complaint lodged to the Superintendent of Police, Economic Offence Wing (EOW), CBI, Ranchi on the allegation that he while posted as Medium Enterprise Relationship Manager (MERM) at Commercial Branch, Bokaro for the period from 12th June, 2006 to 8th December, 2009 had committed the offence of forgery and cheating in the matter of cash credit limit and term loans of various accounts falling within the mischief of Section 120 B, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After the investigation in the criminal cases, as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner and not controverted by the learned counsel for the respondent Bank, Challans have already been filed in all 5 cases against the petitioner. On the same set of allegations, a departmental proceeding has also been initiated against the petitioner. 3. The plea taken by the petitioner before the Writ Court was that the charges in the departmental proceedings are replica of the charges of CBI proceedings as almost on similar set of facts departmental proceedings have been initiated and that in the departmental proceedings Investigating Officer of the criminal cases has also been called as a witness on behalf of the Bank and in case, the said Investigating Officer steps into the witness box and discloses all the steps taken by him which resulted into filing of 05 Challans against the petitioner on the basis of the documentary/oral evidence collected by him during investigation and the petitioner cross-examines the Investigating Officer also, which exercise is unavailable, he will have to disclose his defence in the departmental proceedings, which, in turn, would prejudice his case in the criminal trial. The learned Writ Court finding itself not in agreement with the plea raised by the petitioner ultimately dismissed the writ petition. 4. The learned Writ Court finding itself not in agreement with the plea raised by the petitioner ultimately dismissed the writ petition. 4. Miss Shruti Shrestha, once again reiterating the stand of the petitioner and relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Capt. M. Paul Anthony versus Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. And Another, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 ”, submits that if the departmental proceeding and criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charges in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of grave nature as in the present case involving complicated question of law and facts, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Capt. M. Paul Anthony's case (supra), it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceeding till the conclusion of the criminal trial. She contended that although there is no bar in conducting the departmental proceeding simultaneously but considering the peculiar facts of the present case in which the charges in the departmental proceeding and the criminal proceeding are of the same nature, virtually depending upon the same set of evidence to be produced in the departmental proceeding and before the trial court, the proceeding before the department may be stayed. She further submitted that the respondent Bank has not filed any counter affidavit before the Writ Court to controvert the averment made in the Writ Petition as to for what good reason Investigating Officer of CBI figures in the list of witnesses. 5. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank is also not in a position to make a categoric statement at the Bar as to whether the Investigating Officer of CBI is to be produced only as a witness of record or he would place before the departmental proceeding the entire investigation conducted by him resulting into filing of Challans against the petitioner. He states that before he makes a categoric statement in this regard, he wants to have instructions from the respondent Bank. 6. We, in the present set of circumstances, defer the proceeding of the instant appeal till next date of hearing by staying the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner. 7. List again on 26.07.2016. 8. He states that before he makes a categoric statement in this regard, he wants to have instructions from the respondent Bank. 6. We, in the present set of circumstances, defer the proceeding of the instant appeal till next date of hearing by staying the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner. 7. List again on 26.07.2016. 8. We however, make it clear that since the respondent Bank did not file the counter affidavit before the Writ Court, we grant another opportunity to the respondent Bank to file it now on or before the next date of hearing, with a copy in advance to be provided to the learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner.