ORDER : S.M. Subramaniam, J. 1. The order dated 30.09.2013, passed in W.P.[MD] No. 15690 of 2013 is sought to be revised in the present writ petition. 2. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the review petitioners made a submission that the order passed is erroneous on the ground that the Court has committed an error apparent on record by not considering the pendency of the charges against the respondent employee as well as the criminal case which was pending during the relevant point of time when the promotion panel was prepared. It is contended that at the time of preparation of panel for promotion to the higher post, the respondent officer was facing departmental disciplinary proceedings as well as the criminal case. 3. As per the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and as per the guidelines issued by the Government, in the matter of promotion, an employee who is facing the departmental disciplinary proceedings as well as the criminal case is not entitled for promotion to the higher post. Pendency of departmental disciplinary proceedings as well as the criminal case is a bar for promotion. The Court has not considered the fact regarding the pendency of the criminal case as well as the departmental proceedings against the respondent employee. The ground raised also reveals that the Government also issued instructions pending charges is a bar for promotion. 4. Admittedly, the respondent employee was facing departmental disciplinary proceedings and criminal case during the relevant point of time. This Court while passing final orders considered the judgment of the State of Punjab and others v. Chamanlal Goyal, reported in (1995) 2 SCC 570 , wherein the Court considered promotion on certain facts and circumstances. However, in the present case on hand, the promotion policy of the Government reveals that the pendency under Section 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Sub-ordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, as well as the pendency of the criminal case are a bar for further promotions to the higher post. The details regarding the pendency of the charges as well as the criminal case were not revealed at the time of passing the final orders and the same were not considered while passing final orders in the writ petition. The disciplinary proceedings ended with the order of punishment and the very same respondent Mr. The details regarding the pendency of the charges as well as the criminal case were not revealed at the time of passing the final orders and the same were not considered while passing final orders in the writ petition. The disciplinary proceedings ended with the order of punishment and the very same respondent Mr. Ramasamy, filed other writ petitions challenging the order of punishment and some of the writ petitions are disposed of. 5. Be that as it may, as far as the present review application is concerned, the fact remains that the writ petitioner was facing disciplinary proceedings as well as criminal case, when the panel for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police was prepared. In view of the bar, the writ petitioner was not considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Thus, the order passed in W.P.[MD] No. 15690 of 2013 dated 30.09.2013 deserves to be reviewed in view of the fact that there is an error apparent with reference to the fact regarding the pendency of the criminal and departmental proceedings were not taken note of while passing final orders. 6. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent states that in paragraph No. 4 of the judgment, the Court has taken note of the criminal case and the order of acquittal passed in the criminal case. Further, it is contended that the departmental disciplinary proceedings were also taken note of. It is contended in paragraph No. 4 of the judgment that the departmental disciplinary proceedings cannot be proceeded with simultaneously. 7. With reference to the above observation made by this Court, in paragraph No. 4 of the judgment, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Supreme Court in a number of judgments held that simultaneous proceedings are permissible. Mere pendency of a criminal case is not a bar for continuance of departmental disciplinary proceedings. In this regard, this Court has considered the judgments of the Madras High Court in W.P.[MD] No. 40702 of 2015 dated 18.09.2017 and the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:-- "13. Government servants play a significant role in running the administration of the country. They are important constituents of the administrative set up of the nation. They are pillars of the Government departments on whose shoulders the responsibility to implement the Government policies lies. Government servants play a significant role in running the administration of the country. They are important constituents of the administrative set up of the nation. They are pillars of the Government departments on whose shoulders the responsibility to implement the Government policies lies. They provide public services to the citizens at the grass root level and in the same way they forward grievances of the public, their representations and demands to higher ups for their effective resolution. The Government employees have different work culture and responsibilities as compared to their counterparts in private sector. They are smartly paid and have some kind of perquisites given to them but at the same time, they have heavy responsibilities towards the Government in particular and public in general. However, when the Government servants deviate from the established rules of conduct, the departmental disciplinary proceedings will be initiated. It is the need of the hour to analyse whether conducting departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings would amount to double jeopardy or such simultaneous proceedings are to be continued simultaneously. 14. The departmental authorities are free to exercise such lawful powers as are conferred on them by the departmental rules and regulations. 15. In the case of Sri Bhagwan Ram v. The State of Jharkhand and others, 2018 (156) Fac LR 40), it is well settled that a domestic enquiry and a criminal trial can proceed simultaneously and the decision in the criminal case would not materially affect the outcome of the domestic enquiry. The nature of both the proceedings and the test applied to reach a final conclusion in the matter, are entirely different. 16. In the case of Dr. Bharathi Pandey-Deputy General Manager v. Union of India (Special Civil Application No. 15602 of 2013) the Apex Court held that it is clear that the departmental inquiry proceedings in every case need not be stayed till the criminal proceedings against the petitioner are concluded. It may be done in case of grave nature involving complicated questions of facts and law. The advisability and desirability has to be determined considering facts of each case. 17. In the case of Ajith Kumar Das v. Union of India and others (W.P.(C) No. 4036 of 2017) the Court held that the departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in service and efficiency of public service. The advisability and desirability has to be determined considering facts of each case. 17. In the case of Ajith Kumar Das v. Union of India and others (W.P.(C) No. 4036 of 2017) the Court held that the departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in 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 guideline as inflexible rules in which the departmental proceeding may or may not be stayed pending trial in criminal case against the delinquent officer. There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with the departmental proceeding and trial of a criminal case unless the charge in a criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law. Offence generally implies infringement of public as distinguished from mere private right punishable under criminal law, when trial for criminal offence is conducted it should be in accordance with the proof of offence as per the evidence defined under the provisions of the evidence act. Converse in the case of departmental enquiry in a departmental proceeding relates to conduct of breach of duty of the delinquent officer who punish him for his misconduct defined under the relevant statute/rule or law that strict standard of rule or applicability of Evidence Act stands excluded in a settled legal position. 18. In the case of Avinash Sadashiv Bhosale v. Union of India ( (2012) 13 SCC 142 ) : (2012 AIR SCW 5835) the Court held that there is no legal bar. for both proceedings to go on simultaneously,-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. 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. 19. 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. 19. The Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. M.G. Vittal Rao ( (2012) 1 SCC 442 ) gave a timely reminder of the principles that are 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 cases involving complex questions of facts 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 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." 20. In the case of NOIDA Entrepreneur-Association v. NOIDA and the others (JT 2007 (2) SC 620 : AIR 2007 SC 1161 ), the Court held that the standard of proof and nature of evidence in the departmental inquiry is not the same as in criminal case. The purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution is two different and distinct aspects. The criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of a duty the offended 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. 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. 21. In the case of State Bank of India & Ors. v. R.B. Sharma ( AIR 2004 SC 4144 ) the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated observing that both proceedings can be held simultaneously. It held, "the purpose of departmental inquiry and of prosecution is to put a distinct aspect. Criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of 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 a public duty. The departmental inquiry. is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service." 22. In the case of Ajith Kumar Nag v. General Manager(PJ), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Haldia ( 2005 (7) SCC 764 ) : ( AIR 2005 SC 4217 ) the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the issue of validity of conducting departmental proceeding when the criminal case was pending against the official and held as follows: Acquittal by a criminal court would not debar an employer from exercising power in accordance with Rules and Regulations in force. The two proceedings, criminal and departmental are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with service Rules. 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 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 departmental enquiry on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of 'preponderance of probability'. 23. In the case of West Bokaro Colliery (Tisco Ltd.) v. Ram Parvesh Singh (2008) 3 SCC 729 : ( AIR 2008 SC 1162 ) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of that since standard of proof required in criminal case are beyond reasonable doubt and what is required in departmental inquiry is only of finding the guilt on the basis of preponderance of probability there is no bar in continuing both simultaneously. 24. In the case of S.A. Venkataraman v. Union of India, AIR 1954 SC 375 it has been held by the Supreme Court that taking recourse to both, does not amount to double jeopardy. 1. In Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited v. Girish V. and other (2014) 3 SCC 636 : ( AIR 2014 SC 989 ). It was held that 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 advisable course in cases where the criminal charge against the employee is grave and continuance of the disciplinary proceedings is likely to plagiarize then-defence before the criminal court. 2. The Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena and others (1996) 6 SCC 417 : ( AIR 1997 SC 13 ) held 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. Therefore, stay of disciplinary proceedings cannot be, and should not be, a matter of recourse. 3. It is also to note that acquittal in criminal proceedings on the same set of charges, per se, does not entitle the delinquent to claim immunity from disciplinary proceedings, as observed by the Supreme Court in the case of C.M.D.U.C.O. v. P.C. Kakkar, AIR 2003 SC 1571 . In the same way, departmental proceedings may be continued even after retirement of the employee. (U.P.S.S. Corp. Ltd. v. K.S. Tandon, AIR 2008 SC 1235 ) 25. In the same way, departmental proceedings may be continued even after retirement of the employee. (U.P.S.S. Corp. Ltd. v. K.S. Tandon, AIR 2008 SC 1235 ) 25. Considering the above judgments, this Court is of the firm opinion that the procedure for taking disciplinary action against a Government servant is lengthy and detailed one, giving maximum opportunity to the Government servant to prove his innocence. A Government employee is expected to perform his duties with utmost diligence, efficiency, economy and effectiveness. The Government procedures are lengthy in order to ensure that the Government employees perform their responsibilities without any pressure or exterior considerations. However, at the same time, it ensures discipline amongst the employees and shows the door to the employees who have become dead wood and do not perform as per expectations of public in general and his department in particular. Disciplinary proceeding are conducted to ensure that the morale of the employees as a whole is boosted. It ought to be noted that criminal proceedings will last for years and this can lead to loss of evidences and thereby staying departmental disciplinary proceedings from being conducted simultaneously would lead to gross miscarriage of justice. Also, it is pertinent to note the fact that the object of such departmental proceedings is not to penalise but to assist in restoring the morale of Government servants. Thus, it is of utmost importance that the Court has to strike a balance between the need for a fair trial to the accused on one hand and the competing demand for an expeditious conclusion of the ongoing disciplinary proceedings on the other which will not have any adverse impact if is conducted simultaneously." 8. In respect of the simultaneous proceedings, now the legal principles are settled by the Apex Court that there is no absolute bar and the departmental proceedings can be kept in abeyance only if the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that no materials are available to continue the departmental proceedings. In all other circumstances, the disciplinary authority is empowered to continue the departmental procedures even during the pendency of the criminal case. 9. As far as the pendency of the departmental proceedings are concerned, undoubtedly it is a bar for promotion as per the Government policy for promotion. In all other circumstances, the disciplinary authority is empowered to continue the departmental procedures even during the pendency of the criminal case. 9. As far as the pendency of the departmental proceedings are concerned, undoubtedly it is a bar for promotion as per the Government policy for promotion. Sufficient instructions are issued by the Government stating that an employee who is facing the departmental proceedings under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Sub-ordinate Service Rules (Discipline and Appeal) Rules or Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules are not entitled for promotion to the higher post. This being the settled legal principles, the directions issued to grant promotion to the writ petitioner to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police is not in consonance with the legal principles settled. In view of the error apparent in respect of considering the case coupled with the legal principles settled, this Court is inclined to allow the review application. Consequently, the order in W.P.[MD] No. 15690 of 2013 dated 30.09.2013 is set aside. 10. Accordingly, the review application stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.