JUDGMENT : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition claiming the following reliefs: "(1) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the Memorandum of Charge sheet dated 30.10.2017 (Annex.1) may kindly be quashed and set aside after declaring the same illegal. (2) Any other appropriate order or direction, which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." 2. The petitioner is at present holding the post of Professor Medicine in the Government of Rajasthan being Collegiate Branch of the medical service. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner against the memorandum of charge sheet issued under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short "the Rules of 1958") dated 30th October, 2017 and the consequential proceedings. The charge sheet has been drawn in pursuance of the complaint made by Dr. Jayanti Mala, Senior Demonstrate Pathology, SMS Medical, Jaipur who is wife of present petitioner. The present petitioner and his wife are having serious matrimonial disputes resulting into criminal case and also initiation of the departmental inquiry against the petitioner. 3. The complainant Dr. Jayanti Mala lodged an FIR on 5th October, 2015 bearing No. 160/2015 at Mahila Thana, Mansarovar, Jaipur under Sections 498A, 406, 494 IPC and Section 6 sub-section (2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner. The marriage had taken place on 23rd April, 2003. While investigating the FIR, the Police chose to submit a report before the Medical Superintendent, SMS Hospital, Jaipur regarding misconduct being made out against the present petitioner. On the basis of report dated 21st April, 2017, the petitioner was issued a notice under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 for initiating inquiry against him and the charge sheet was accordingly issued on 12th September, 2017. 4. Learned Senior Advocate Shri RN Mathur submits that the premise of the criminal proceedings and the departmental proceedings was same and, therefore, two cannot be carried on together. It would detrimental to the interest of the petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner has demonstrated that the charges levelled under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 and the allegations made in the FIR are based upon the same set of facts and also contain the same allegations. 5. It would detrimental to the interest of the petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner has demonstrated that the charges levelled under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 and the allegations made in the FIR are based upon the same set of facts and also contain the same allegations. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings are based on identical set of facts and the respondents ought not to have initiated the departmental proceedings on the same set of facts before concluding the trial as petitioner's criminal proceedings are likely to be prejudiced. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that once the departmental proceedings are initiated, it should have been stayed during pendency of the criminal trial as the departmental inquiry itself is emerging from the set of facts as that of criminal proceedings. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that the departmental proceedings are initiated out of personal grudge and since the matrimonial disputes of the complainant with the petitioner carry no allegations about his professional duties. Learned counsel for petitioner has referred to the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Captain M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if the departmental proceedings and the criminal proceedings are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of grave nature which involves complicated question of law and fact, then it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till conclusion of the criminal case. 8. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Rajasthan Vs. B.K. Meena & Ors., reported in (1996) 6 SCC 417 . The relevant Para 14 reads as follows: "It would be evident from the above decisions that each of them starts with the indisputable proposition 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 disciplinary proceedings, it is emphasised, is a matter to be determined having regard to the facts and circumstances of a given case ad that no hard and fat rules can enunciated in that behalf. The only ground suggested in the above questions as constitution 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. The ground indicated in D.C.M. and Tata Oil Mills is not also an invariable rule. 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 consideration 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 involved. They get bogged down on one or the other ground. They hardly ever reach a prompt conclusion. That is the reality inspite 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 the undesirable elements are thrown out and any charge of misdemeanor 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. 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 misdemeanor 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." 9. Learned counsel for petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Sarvesh Berry, reported in (2005) 10 SCC 471 whereby the precedent law laid down in Captain M. Paul Anthony (supra) was reiterated. Learned counsel for petitioner has also drawn attention of the court to the judgment in Kusheshwar Dubey Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors., reported in (1998) 4 SCC 319. The relevant Para 6 to 9 read as follows: "6. The view expressed in the three cases of this Court seem to support the position that while there could be no legal bar for simultaneous proceedings being taken yet, there may be cases where it would be appropriate to defer disciplinary proceedings awaiting disposal of the criminal case In the latter class of cases it would be open to the delinquent-employee to seek such an order of stay or injunction from the Court. Whether in the facts and circumstances of a particular case there should or should not be such simultaneity of the proceedings would then receive judicial consideration and the Court will decide in the given circumstances of a particular case as to whether the disciplinary proceedings should be interdicted, pending criminal trial As we have already stated that it is neither possible nor advisable to evolve a hard and fast, straight-jacket formula valid for all cases and of general application without regard to the particularities of the individual-situation. For the disposal of the present case, we do not think it necessary to say, anything more, particularly when we do not intend to lay down any general guideline. 8. In the instant case, the criminal action and the disciplinary proceedings are grounded upon the same set of facts. We are of the view that the disciplinary proceedings should have been stayed and the High Court was not right in interfering with the trial court's order of injunction which had been affirmed in appeal. 9. The appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court is vacated and that of the trial court as affirmed in appeal is restored. The appellant shall be entitled to costs. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 2,000." 10. Learned counsel for petitioner has also drawn the attention of the court to the charge levelled against the petitioner reads as follows: ^^;g gS fd vki MkWŒ izHkkr daofj;k] vkpk;Z] esMhlu foHkkx] lokbZ ekuflag fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;] t;iqj ds }kjk jktdh; lsok esa jgrs gq, eksVk ngst ysdj xhrk uked fookfgr ukckfyx yM+dh ls voS/k¼'kwU;½ fookg dj fy;k x;kA vkids mDr d`R; ds fy, vkidh iRuh MkŒ t;afr ekyk }kjk eqdnek ua-160@2015 varxZr /kkjk 498,] 406] 494 Hkknl efgyk Fkkuk nf{k.k] t;iqj esa ntZ djok;k x;kA mDr eqdnesa esa iqfyl mik;qDr ¼nf{k.k½ t;iqj ds i= Øekad 26815&17 fnukad 17-10-2016 ,oa i= Øekad 31573&77 fnukad 13-12-2016 ds }kjk /kkjk 498,] 406] 494 Hkknl dk vijk/k lkfcr ik;k tkus dh lwpuk nh x;h] vkidk ;g d`R; nqjkpj.k dh Js.kh es vkrk gSA bl izdkj vki MkWŒ izHkkr jktLFkku flfoy lsok ¼vkpj.k½ fu;e 1971 ds fu;e 25 dk mYya?ku dj xEHkhj nqjkpj.k djus ds fy, ftEesnkj gSA^^ 11. Learned counsel for petitioner has also shown an FIR which is having similar contents and is based on the same facts. 12. Respondent No. 2 Dr. Learned counsel for petitioner has also shown an FIR which is having similar contents and is based on the same facts. 12. Respondent No. 2 Dr. Jayanti Mala appearing in person submits that though the contents of the FIR and the charge sheet are of similar nature. She submits that violation of Rule 25 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971 is outcome of same allegations which are depicted in the FIR lodged by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner. 13. Respondent No. 2 further submits that the matters arising out of the disciplinary proceedings have limited scope and the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Manmohan Nath Sinha & Anr., reported in 2009 (8) SCC 310 and another case in Central Industrial Security Force & Ors. Vs. Abrar Ali, reported in AIR 2017 SC 200 which is three Judge Bench has clearly laid down the precedent law that ordinarily there shall not be any interference in the disciplinary matters by the courts. 14. Respondent No. 2 further submits that pendency of the criminal trial is likely to take long time and the departmental proceedings if stopped then would result into gross delay in the proceedings. Respondent No. 2 also submits that at this stage, no interference in the departmental inquiry is called for. Respondent No. 2 Dr. Jayanti Mala has relied upon certain judgments which read as follows: (1) Union of India & Anr. Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, Appeal (Civil) No. 5145/2006, decided on 22nd November, 2006. (2) State of Rajasthan Vs. B.K. Meena & Ors., reported in AIR 1997 SC 13 . (3) Surja Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 1997 SC 18 . (4) Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Mohd. Yousuf Miya, reported in AIR 1997 SC 2332 . (5) Satya Pal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in AIR 1997 SC 2235 . (6) Accounts Officer (A & I), APSRTC & Ors. Vs. K.V. Ramana & Ors., reported in AIR 2007 SC 1166 . (7) Indian Overseas Bank, Anna Salai & Anr. Vs. P. Ganesan & Ors., reported in AIR 2008 SC 553 . (8) State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Prem Sarup, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 522 . (9) Shashi Bhushan Prasad Vs. Inspector General Central Industrial Security Force & Ors., Civil Appeal No(s). (7) Indian Overseas Bank, Anna Salai & Anr. Vs. P. Ganesan & Ors., reported in AIR 2008 SC 553 . (8) State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Prem Sarup, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 522 . (9) Shashi Bhushan Prasad Vs. Inspector General Central Industrial Security Force & Ors., Civil Appeal No(s). 7130/2009, decided on 1st August, 2019. (10) Samar Bahadur Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2011) 9 SCC 94 . 15. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this court is of the opinion that the jurisprudence laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the precedent laws referred does definitely empowers the court to stop the departmental proceedings but the same has to be exercised with great restraint because unless the matter pertains to complicated question of law and the offences are of grave nature, no such exercise ought to be contemplated by this court. 16. This court also finds that precedent law also expresses grave concern in the matters where due to prolonged criminal trial, the departmental inquiries are stayed and grave delay is caused in conducting the inquiry. Moreover, the applicability of the precedent law in the given facts clearly permits the departmental proceedings and the proceedings in a criminal case to proceed simultaneously as in present case does not involve complicated question of law and facts are not reflected. This case is all about matrimonial allegations and offences which can be adjudicated by the courts and the departmental inquiry simultaneously. The precedent law is also consistent in recording deep concern over the departmental proceedings being delayed on the pretext of criminal proceedings going-on. That being the position, since in the present case, no complicated question of law and facts are involved and appropriate conclusions can be arrived at by disposal of criminal case and the departmental proceedings, therefore, no case of any intervention in the present writ petitions is made out. In the light of aforesaid observations, the writ petitions are dismissed. 17. A copy of this order be placed in each file.