JUDGMENT : 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner Devendra Kumar Mehta being aggrieved of the order dated 06.11.2019 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench Jodhpur whereby, the Original Application No. 290/00190/2019 preferred by the petitioner with a prayer to stay the disciplinary enquiry instituted against him, was rejected. 2. The controversy involved in this matter is in a very narrow sphere. The petitioner herein (since retired) was posted as Inspector in the office of the Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax Commissionerate, Udaipur at the relevant point of time. An FIR came to be registered against him with the Anti Corruption Bureau on 16.05.2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on a complaint filed by one Raghuraj Singh Sisodia. It is alleged that on the complaint of Shri Raghuraj Singh Sisodia, a trap was laid and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was recovered from the drawer of the table assigned to the petitioner. After investigation, a charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner for the above offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. After submission of the charge-sheet, charges have been framed and the criminal trial has commenced. 3. Parallel to the criminal proceedings, the respondent Department, served a departmental charge-sheet dated 27.06.2019 to the petitioner under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The petitioner claims that the allegations as set out in the departmental charge-sheet are verbatim the same as those levelled in the criminal charge-sheet. Claiming that the continuance of the departmental proceedings may prejudice his defence in the criminal trial, the petitioner firstly filed an application to the Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax Commissionerate, Udaipur to keep the departmental proceedings in abeyance and when the said prayer of the petitioner was not acceded to, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench Jodhpur through Original Application No. 290/00190/2019 for challenging the order dated 26.07.2019 issued by the Commissioner, CG&ST, Udaipur whereby, enquiry officer was appointed and his prayer to stay the departmental enquiry was turned down. 4. 4. Learned counsel Shri Shah representing the petitioner submits that complicated questions of facts and law are involved in the matter and thus, keeping in view the observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Ors. reported in (1999) SCC (LS) 810; Stanzen Toyotetsu India P. Ltd. v. Girish V. & Ors. reported in (2014) 3 SCC 636 and State Bank of India & Ors. v. Neelam Nag, reported in (2016) 9 SCC 491 , further proceedings of the disciplinary enquiry deserve to be kept in abeyance. Shri Shah submits that the observation made by the learned Tribunal in the impugned order that the petitioner was trapped red handed while receiving the illegal gratification, is totally unfounded because the amount was not recovered from the person of the petitioner but was rather, planted into the petitioner's table drawer by the decoy for oblique motives. He urges that if the departmental enquiry is permitted to be continued, the defence of the petitioner in the criminal court shall be revealed and his case shall be severely prejudiced. He thus urges that a direction may be given to the criminal court to expedite the trial and till the trial is concluded, the departmental enquiry may be kept in abeyance. 5. Per contra, Shri Rajvendra Saraswat, learned counsel representing the respondent Department, urges that the learned Tribunal was absolutely justified in holding that complicated questions of facts and law are not involved in the case and hence, there is no cause to stay the departmental enquiry. However, on a pertinent query being made, Shri Saraswat could not dispute the fact that the amount of illegal gratification was not recovered from the person of the petitioner herein. 6. There is no dispute amongst the parties that the allegations levelled in the criminal case and the charges attributed to the petitioner in the disciplinary enquiry are verbatim the same and even the list of witnesses is the same. 7. Whether or not, the amount was planted by the complainant into the table drawer of the petitioner, whether the allegation of demand of illegal gratification is proved will be established by the evidence, are complex questions of facts and law. 7. Whether or not, the amount was planted by the complainant into the table drawer of the petitioner, whether the allegation of demand of illegal gratification is proved will be established by the evidence, are complex questions of facts and law. Without any doubt, if the petitioner is made to face the disciplinary enquiry during the course of recording of evidence therein, he would have to put questions to the material witnesses disclosing his defences which unquestionably could prejudice the trial of the criminal case. 8. In this background, we are of the firm opinion that allowing the disciplinary enquiry to be continued against the petitioner till the criminal case reaches to its culmination, is not warranted in the peculiar facts of the case. 9. As a consequence, the impugned order dated 06.11.2019 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench Jodhpur in Original Application No. 290/00190/2019 and the order dated 26.07.2019 passed by the Commissioner, CG&ST, Udaipur cannot be sustained in the interest of justice and on the principles of fair trial. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The order dated 06.11.2019 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench Jodhpur in Original Application No. 290/00190/2019 and the order dated 26.07.2019 passed by the Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax Commissionerate, Udaipur, are quashed and set aside. The criminal court i.e. Special Court, Anti Corruption Cases, Udaipur seized of the trial against the petitioner is directed to expedite the proceedings and shall try to complete the same as soon as possible and preferably within a period of one and half years from the date of submission of copy of this order. Till the trial is concluded, further proceedings of the departmental enquiry instituted against the petitioner shall remain in abeyance. 11. No order as to costs.