JUDGMENT : With consent of the parties, hearing of the matter has been done through video conferencing and there is no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and visual quality. 2. The instant intra-court appeal is preferred against the order/judgment dated 24.07.2020 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 92 of 2020, whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has refused to interfere with order dated 06.08.2019, by which departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and further refused to stay departmental proceeding which was initiated against the petitioner vide order dated 06.08.2019. 3. The brief facts of the case, which are required to be enumerated herein for proper adjudication of the lis, are as under: The writ petitioner was appointed as Accounts Trainee in regular establishment of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited (in short ‘B.C.C.L.') vide order dated 18.11.1987. Pursuant thereto, the writ petitioner joined the said post on 19.11.1987 and from time to time he was promoted and vide order dated 19.05.2014, he was promoted from the post of Senior Cashier to Chief Cashier. While working as such, a written report was lodged against the petitioner before the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short ‘C.B.I.’) stating therein that the petitioner demanded and accepted bribe of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) from the complainant for processing pending claim of yearly/quarterly bonus, leave encashment, pay, arrear etc. as due to him, based upon which, the C.B.I. registered a case being R.C. Case No. 4(A)/2019(D) for the alleged commission of offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. After investigation, the investigating agency-C.B.I submitted charge-sheet against the writ petitioner-appellant for the alleged offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In the meantime, the management of the respondents-BCCL had also proposed to hold an inquiry against the writ petitioner, as such written statement of defence was called for from him vide order dated 05.07.2019, to which, he replied vide letter dated 16.07.2019 but the respondents-Management being dissatisfied with the reply so furnished by the writ petitioner decided to conduct departmental enquiry against the writ petitioner vide order dated 06.08.2019. Being aggrieved thereof, the writ petitioner moved before this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 92 of 2020 by invoking power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing order dated 06.08.2019, by which departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and further during pendency of the departmental proceeding to keep in abeyance the departmental proceeding, which was initiated against the petitioner vide order dated 06.08.2019, on the ground that on the similar set of charges one criminal case, being R.C. Case No. 4(A)/2019(D) is pending. According to writ petitioner, the documents as well as the witnesses are more or less same in the both the proceedings. It was further contended that the two proceeding of similar nature cannot run simultaneously. The respondents-BCCL appeared before the writ Court and referring to the judgment in Om Prakash Prasad Vs. Central Coalfields Limited & Anr. [2016 SCC OnLine Jhar 2178] submitted that the case of the petitioner is fit to be rejected. The writ Court, after appreciating the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and putting reliance upon certain judgments rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 24.07.2020, which is the subject matter of instant intra-court appeal. 4. We have heard Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant and Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the respondents-B.C.C.L and perused the documents available on record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner by relying upon the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court has submitted that in a case where criminal case is going on simultaneous to the departmental proceeding and if the nature of the offence is grave, the departmental proceeding is required to be kept in abeyance but the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that aspect of the matter. According to him, since the offence alleged against the writ petitioner is of the commission of offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which is grave in nature, the proposition of law laid down in the case of Shesh Nath Choubey Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board, through its Chairman, Ranchi & Ors [ 2014 2 JCR 62 ] is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case but without appreciating the facts in right prospective, the writ petition was dismissed. 6. Per contra, Mr. Jharkhand State Electricity Board, through its Chairman, Ranchi & Ors [ 2014 2 JCR 62 ] is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case but without appreciating the facts in right prospective, the writ petition was dismissed. 6. Per contra, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-B.C.C.L has submitted that merely because the offence is grave in nature there cannot be any restriction in simultaneous continuation of departmental proceeding at the time of pendency of criminal case on the same set of offence rather according to him the proposition as has been laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. And Another [ (1999) 3 SCC 679 ] is applicable in the facts of the present case wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that if the offence is found to be grave and involved complicated question of fact and law then only during pendency of the criminal proceeding the departmental proceeding can be kept in abeyance but in the case in hand there is no issue of involvement of complicated questions of fact and law rather the simple case is that writ petitioner was found to be involved in gratification for which case under Section 7 of the P.C Act was instituted while the departmental proceeding is on the issue of moral turpitude and integrity, therefore, it cannot be said that both on fact and law, any complicated issue is involved. It has further been submitted that the departmental proceeding has been initiated on the issue of moral turpitude while the criminal proceeding is for acceptance of gratification and, therefore, the charges leveled against the writ petitioner in both the proceedings are quite different to each other and therefore, the learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the fact as also the principle of law, as has been enunciated by Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Bihar & Ors vs. Phulpari Kumari [ (2020) 2 SCC 130 ] is correct in dismissing in writ petition. 7. This Court having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the documents available on record, first deem it fit and proper to refer legal position of law on the facts of the case in hand. 7. This Court having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the documents available on record, first deem it fit and proper to refer legal position of law on the facts of the case in hand. On the issue of continuation of departmental proceeding simultaneously with the judicial proceeding the Hon’ble Apex Court in Depot Manager A.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vrs. Md. Yousuf Miya and Ors., [ (1997) 2 SCC 699 ], has been pleased to make difference between the purpose of departmental enquiry and criminal trial holding that purpose of departmental enquiry and the prosecution are two different and distinct aspects. The criminal prosecution is launched for an offence in 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 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. Such offence generally implies infringement of public, 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 led and defined under the provisions of 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. 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. The enquiry in the departmental proceedings relates to the conduct of the delinquent officer and proof in that behalf is not as high as in an offence in criminal charge. It is seen that invariably the departmental enquiry has to be conducted expeditiously so as to effectuate efficiency in public administration and the criminal trial will take its own course. The nature of evidence in criminal trial is entirely different from the departmental proceedings. In the former, prosecution is to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the touchstone of human conduct. The standard of proof in the departmental proceedings is not the same as of the criminal trial. The evidence also is different from the standard point of the Evidence Act. The evidence required in the departmental enquiry is not regulated by the Evidence Act. 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. In other judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex court in State of Rajasthan Vs. B.K. Meena and Others, [ (1996) 6 SCC 417 ] the same view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex court. In the case of judgment rendered in Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Another [ (1999) 3 SCC 679 ], the Hon'ble Apex court while dealing with the situation of simultaneous continuation of departmental proceeding vis-à-vis criminal proceeding, has arrived at following conclusions: (i).Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Another [ (1999) 3 SCC 679 ], the Hon'ble Apex court while dealing with the situation of simultaneous continuation of departmental proceeding vis-à-vis criminal proceeding, has arrived at following conclusions: (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. (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. In Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. Vs. In Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. Vs. Girish V. and Others, [ (2014) 3 SCC 636 ], their lordships of Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with the situation of continuation of simultaneous proceeding both in departmental as well as criminal proceeding, has been pleased to hold by taking note of all the earlier judgments rendered at paragraph 16 which reads as under:— “16.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 an advisable course in cases where the criminal charge against the employee is grave and continuance of the disciplinary proceedings is likely to prejudice their defence before the criminal court. Gravity of the charge is, however, not by itself enough to determine the question unless the charge involves complicated question of law and fact. The court examining the question must also keep in mind that criminal trials get prolonged indefinitely especially where the number of accused arraigned for trial is large as is the case at hand and so are the number of witnesses cited by the prosecution. The court, therefore, has to draw a balance between the need for a fair trial to the accused on the one hand and the competing demand for an expeditious conclusion of the ongoing disciplinary proceedings on the other. An early conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings has itself been seen by this court to be in the interest of the employees.” It is thus evident from the judgments referred herein above that there is no bar in simultaneous continuation of departmental proceeding with criminal proceeding as each and every case has to be adjudged on the related facts of the case. 8. In the given facts, wherein on the basis of complaint made by one pensioner of demanding Rs. 10,000/- for extending the pensionary benefit upon which a case was registered by the C.B.I., in which charge-sheet was also submitted. The management-BCCL has also initiated a departmental proceeding vide order dated 06.08.2019 by framing charge that the writ petitioner has failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and committed misconduct under clause 26.1.13 of the Certified Standing Orders applicable for workmen of establishments under BCCL. The management-BCCL has also initiated a departmental proceeding vide order dated 06.08.2019 by framing charge that the writ petitioner has failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and committed misconduct under clause 26.1.13 of the Certified Standing Orders applicable for workmen of establishments under BCCL. Thus, in the criminal proceeding, the charge was of demand of gratification while the departmental proceeding was initiated on the ground of failing to maintain integrity and devotion to duty under the applicable Certified Standing Orders of BCCL. Hence, according to our considered view the charges in both the proceedings, criminal and departmental, are quite different and distinct to each other. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has put much emphasis by arguing out the case that if the departmental proceeding would not be stayed, the case of the writ petitioner will be prejudiced in the criminal case, but, as would be evident from the laws laid down in Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. And Another (supra) and Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Ltd. Vs. Girish V. and others (supra), that there is not bar in simultaneous continuation of criminal proceeding and departmental proceeding as each and every case has to be adjudged on the related facts of the case. 10. In the present case, since the departmental proceeding is initiated on quite different charge and the criminal case is instituted on different issue, as such according to our considered view there is no question of being prejudiced. Further, there cannot be said to be involvement of grave and complicated questions of law and fact rather the departmental proceeding is for violation of the provisions of Certified Standing Orders applicable for workmen of establishments under respondents-BCCL (employer) while the criminal case is for demand of gratification. 11. We have also perused the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge and found therefrom that the learned Single Judge has considered these aspects of the matter, as discussed hereinabove and placing reliance on the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar & Ors vs. Phulpari Kumari (supra) as also judgment rendered in Om Prakash Prasad Vs. Central Coalfields Limited & Ors (supra), has declined to interfere with the impugned decision dated 06.08.2019, by which departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and also refused to stay departmental proceeding which was initiated against the petitioner vide order dated 06.08.2019, which according to us cannot be faulted with. 12. Accordingly, the present intra-court appeal fails and, is dismissed.