ORDER : D.N. Patel, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the appellant (original petitioner) whose writ petition being W.P.(S) 7400 of 2012 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 07.11.2017 whereby prayer of this appellant for getting stay against departmental proceeding was not granted by the learned Single Judge and hence, the appellant (original petitioner) has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Having heard learned counsels of both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this appellant was working as Block Development Officer at Potka, District-East Singhbhum. 3. There are allegations of as many as one dozen misappropriations of sizeable amount by this appellant, as alleged by the State on criminal side, and on civil side there are allegations of dereliction in the duty by this appellant. Moreover, there is allegation of no proper inspection and supervision of varieties of projects under this appellant and he has not performed his duties properly. Thus, for the charges on civil side, with the support of 12 types of misappropriations it is alleged that lakhs of rupees has been misappropriated. Such type of work is being done in chorus with other employees and therefore on a criminal side there shall be a charge under Sections 467/468/471/420/406/408/409 to be read with Section 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, but, on a civil side, there is charge in personam about dereliction in the duty, no inspection and no supervision work is being done properly on the post which was held by this appellant. 4. Now the contention raised by the appellant is of a civil side and of a criminal side for the same charges, two proceeding cannot be initiated. We are not in agreement with this contention mainly for the reasons that: (a) The charges on a civil side and on criminal side are different. (b) On criminal side there are charges of forgery etc. We are not in agreement with this contention mainly for the reasons that: (a) The charges on a civil side and on criminal side are different. (b) On criminal side there are charges of forgery etc. to be read with Section 34 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, whereas, on a civil side as per the charge-sheet, which is at Annexure-2/1, there are charges of dereliction in the duty of no inspection and no supervision by this appellant of the projects which he was to handle and he has not performed the duties of his post and the examples have been given of 12 different occasions there were dereliction in the duties. (c) In criminal proceedings, the State, is in search of the fact, whether accused has committed, offences as defined in Indian Penal Code, whereas, in Civil Proceedings, the employer, is finding out the fact, whether, delinquent has committed, violations of rules of discipline or what is/are the degrees of integrity of the delinquent. (d) Thus, on a criminal side there are charges of misappropriation and forgery etc. and of criminal breach of trust and conspiracy, whereas, on civil side there is gross dereliction in the duty. (e) On criminal side the charges can be proved by the evidence beyond reasonable doubt, whereas, on civil side upon preponderance of probabilities the charges can be proved. (f) Sometimes, on a criminal side because of brotherhood the witnesses are turning hostile, which may not be the fact, on a civil side. (g) On civil side, even if, the Inquiry Officer is arrived at a conclusion that the charges are not proved, nonetheless, the disciplinary authority can surely give show cause notice with reasons, for not agreeing with the conclusions arrived at by the Inquiry Officer. Such mechanism is not available with the Sessions Judge or with the Judge who is conducting the criminal matter. 5. In the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 , it has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court as under: “13. Such mechanism is not available with the Sessions Judge or with the Judge who is conducting the criminal matter. 5. In the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 , it has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court as under: “13. As we shall presently see, there is a consensus of judicial opinion amongst the High Courts whose decisions we do not intend to refer to in this case, and the various pronouncements of this Court, which shall be copiously referred to, on the basic principle that proceedings in a criminal case and the departmental proceedings can proceed simultaneously with a little exception. As we understand, the basis for this proposition is that proceedings in a criminal case and the departmental proceedings operate in distinct and different jurisdictional areas. Whereas in the departmental proceedings, where a charge relating to misconduct is being investigated, the factors operating in the mind of the disciplinary authority may be many such as enforcement of discipline or to investigate the level of integrity of the delinquent or the other staff, the standard of proof required in those proceedings is also different than that required in a criminal case. While in the departmental proceedings the standard of proof is one of preponderance of the probabilities, in a criminal case, the charge has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The little exception may be where the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common without there being a variance. 22. The conclusions 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. (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, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest. 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.” (emphasis supplied) 6. In the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan V. t. Srinivas reported in (2004) 7 SCC 442 , it has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court as under: “10. From the above, it is clear that the advisability, desirability or propriety, as the case may be, in regard to a departmental enquiry has to be determined in each case taking into consideration all facts and circumstances of the case. This judgment also lays down that the stay of departmental proceedings cannot be and should not be a matter of course. 14. This judgment also lays down that the stay of departmental proceedings cannot be and should not be a matter of course. 14. We are of the opinion that both the Tribunal and the High Court proceeded on an erroneous legal principle without taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case and proceeded as if the stay of disciplinary proceedings is a must in every case where there is a criminal trial on the very same charges, in this background it is not necessary for us to go into the second question whether at least Charge 3 by itself could have been permitted to be decided in the departmental enquiry as contended alternatively by the learned counsel for the appellant.” (emphasis supplied) 7. In the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. V. Sarvesh Berry reported in (2005) 10 SCC 471 , it has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court as under: “7. It is a fairly well-settled position in law that on basic principles, proceedings in criminal case and departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously, except in some cases where departmental proceedings and criminal case are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common. It is in these cases, the court has to decide, taking into account the special features of the case, whether simultaneous continuance of both would be proper. 8. The purposes of departmental enquiry and of prosecution are two different and distinct aspects. Criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of a duty the offender owes to the society, or for breach of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. So, crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. It would, therefore, be expedient that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible. It is not, therefore, desirable to lay down any guidelines as inflexible rules in which the departmental proceedings may or may not be stayed pending trial in criminal case against the delinquent officer. Each case requires to be considered in the backdrop of its own facts and circumstances. It is not, therefore, desirable to lay down any guidelines as inflexible rules in which the departmental proceedings may or may not be stayed pending trial in criminal case against the delinquent officer. Each case requires to be considered in the backdrop of its own facts and circumstances. There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental enquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the charge in the criminal trial is of a grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law. Offence generally implies infringement of public duty, as distinguished from mere private rights punishable under criminal law. When trial for criminal offence is conducted it should be in accordance with proof of the offence as per the evidence defined under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short “the Evidence Act”). Converse is the case of departmental enquiry. The enquiry in departmental proceedings relates to conduct or breach of duty of the delinquent officer to punish him for his misconduct defined under the relevant statutory rules or law. That the strict standard of proof or applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded is a settled legal position. Under these circumstances, what is required to be seen is whether the departmental enquiry would seriously prejudice the delinquent in his defence at the trial in a criminal case. It is always a question of fact to be considered in each case depending on its own facts and circumstances.” (emphasis supplied) 8. In the case of NOIDA Enterpreneurs Assn. V. NOIDA reported in (2007) 10 SCC 385 it has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court as under: “11. A bare perusal of the order which has been quoted in its totality goes to show that the same is not based on any rational foundation. The conceptual difference between a departmental enquiry and criminal proceedings has not been kept in view. Even orders passed by the executive have to be tested on the touchstone of reasonableness. [See Tata Cellular v. Union of India and Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. v. U.T., Chandigarh.] The conceptual difference between departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings have been highlighted by this Court in several cases. Reference may be made to Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. T. Srinivas, Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Sarvesh Berry and Uttaranchal RTC v. Mansaram Nainwal. “8. [See Tata Cellular v. Union of India and Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. v. U.T., Chandigarh.] The conceptual difference between departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings have been highlighted by this Court in several cases. Reference may be made to Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. T. Srinivas, Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Sarvesh Berry and Uttaranchal RTC v. Mansaram Nainwal. “8. … The purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution are two different and distinct aspects. The criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of a duty, the offender owes to the society or for breach of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. So crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. It would, therefore, be expedient that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible. It is not, therefore, desirable to lay down any guidelines as inflexible rules in which the departmental proceedings may or may not be stayed pending trial in criminal case against the delinquent officer. Each case requires to be considered in the backdrop of its own facts and circumstances. There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental enquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the charge in the criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law. Offence generally implies infringement of public duty, as distinguished from mere private rights punishable under criminal law. When trial for criminal offence is conducted it should be in accordance with proof of the offence as per the evidence defined under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [in short ‘the Evidence Act’]. Converse is the case of departmental enquiry. The enquiry in a departmental proceedings relates to conduct or breach of duty of the delinquent officer to punish him for his misconduct defined under the relevant statutory rules or law. That the strict standard of proof or applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded is a settled legal position. … Under these circumstances, what is required to be seen is whether the departmental enquiry would seriously prejudice the delinquent in his defence at the trial in a criminal case. That the strict standard of proof or applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded is a settled legal position. … Under these circumstances, what is required to be seen is whether the departmental enquiry would seriously prejudice the delinquent in his defence at the trial in a criminal case. It is always a question of fact to be considered in each case depending on its own facts and circumstances.” 13. 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 delinquent official. He cannot be permitted to, on one hand, prolong criminal case and at the same time contend that the departmental proceedings should be stayed on the ground that the criminal case is pending. 16. The standard of proof required in departmental proceedings is not the same as required to prove a criminal charge and even if there is an acquittal in the criminal proceedings the same does not bar departmental proceedings. That being so, the order of the State Government deciding not to continue the departmental proceedings is clearly untenable and is quashed. The departmental proceedings shall continue.” (emphasis supplied) 9. In the case of Indian Overseas Bank V. P.Ganesan reported in (2008) 1 SCC 650 , it has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court as under: “23. The High Court, unfortunately, although it noticed some of the binding precedents of the Court failed to apply the law in its proper perspective. The High Court was not correct in its view in concluding that the stay of the departmental proceedings should be granted in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case without analysing and applying the principle of law evolved in the aforementioned decisions. It, therefore, misdirected itself in law. What was necessary to be noticed by the High Court was not only existence of identical facts and the evidence in the matter, it was also required to take into consideration the question as to whether the charges levelled against the delinquent officers, both in the criminal case as also the in disciplinary proceedings, were same. What was necessary to be noticed by the High Court was not only existence of identical facts and the evidence in the matter, it was also required to take into consideration the question as to whether the charges levelled against the delinquent officers, both in the criminal case as also the in disciplinary proceedings, were same. Furthermore it was obligatory on the part of the High Court to arrive at a finding that the non-stay of the disciplinary proceedings shall not only prejudice the delinquent officers but the matter also involves a complicated question of law. 24. The standard of proof in a disciplinary proceedings and that in a criminal trial is different. If there are additional charges against the delinquent officers including the charges of damaging the property belonging to the Bank which was not the subject-matter of allegations in a criminal case, the departmental proceedings should not have been stayed.” (emphasis supplied) 10. In the case of Avinash Sadashiv Bhosale V. Union of India reported in (2012) 13 SCC 142 it has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court as under: “55. In view of the aforesaid legal principles enunciated and reiterated by this Court, we cannot accept that because the appellant had been prosecuted, the departmental proceedings could not have been continued simultaneously. As pointed out by Mr Dwivedi, the charges against the appellant in the criminal trial related to the commission of criminal offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 201 of the Penal Code. The proof of criminal charges depended upon prosecution producing proof beyond reasonable doubt relating to the culpability of the appellant along with other persons. In the departmental proceedings, the basic charge was that the appellant whilst posted as a Branch Manager of Washi Turbhe Branch, failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank and acted in a manner unbecoming of a bank officer. The aforesaid charge clearly related to the manner in which the appellant performed the duties as the Manager of the branch of the Bank. It had nothing to do with any criminal liability attaching to such conduct.” (emphasis supplied) 11. In the case of SBI V. Neelam Nag reported in (216) 9 SCC 491 it has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court as under: “13. It had nothing to do with any criminal liability attaching to such conduct.” (emphasis supplied) 11. In the case of SBI V. Neelam Nag reported in (216) 9 SCC 491 it has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court as under: “13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. The only question that arises for consideration is no more res integra. It is well settled that there is no legal bar to the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings and criminal trial simultaneously. However, no straitjacket formula can be spelt out and the Court has to keep in mind the broad approach to be adopted in such matters on case-to-case basis. The contour of the approach to be adopted by the Court has been delineated in a series of decisions. 18. In the peculiar facts of the present case, therefore, we accede to the contention of the appellants that the pendency of the criminal case against the respondent cannot be the sole basis to suspend the disciplinary proceedings initiated against Respondent 1 for an indefinite period; and in larger public interest, the order as passed in Stanzen case be followed even in the fact situation of the present case, to balance the equities.” (emphasis supplied) 12. In view of the aforesaid decisions, the departmental proceeding which is initiated by the respondents cannot be stayed because there is substantial difference looking to the charges in the criminal side and charges on the civil side upon this appellant. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge, while deciding W.P.(S) No.7400 of 2012 vide judgment and order dated 07.11.2017. We see no reason, to take any other view, than what is taken by the learned Single Judge. We agree with the reasons given by the learned Single Judge and hence, there is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and the same is therefore, dismissed. L.P.A. dismissed.