ORDER : (Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.) 1. Since an identical issue and common question of facts are involved in both of these writ petitions, they are heard analogously and are being decided by this common order. 2. The petitioner in WPS No. 3614 of 2022 has filed this writ petition for quashing of findings of enquiry report dated 27.04.2022 issued by respondent No. 2/Assistant Security Commissioner-II, South Eastern Central Railway (SECR), Raipur which was sent to the petitioner vide memo dated 28.04.2022 directing him to submit reply/representation, if any, within 15 days. 3. The petitioner in WPS No. 3705 of 2022 has filed this writ petition for quashing of findings of enquiry report dated 27.04.2022 issued by respondent No. 2/Assistant Security Commissioner-II, South Eastern Central Railway (SECR), Raipur which was sent to the petitioner vide memo dated 27.04.2022 directing him to submit reply/representation, if any, within 15 days. 4. Brief facts as reflected from records are that the petitioners are working as Head Constable in Railway Protection Force and posted at outpost Tilda and on 28.12.2021, when railway rack loaded with Iron Pellets arrived at Mandhar railway station, the petitioner (in WPS No. 3614/2022) along with another Constable namely Mohit Kumar (petitioner in WPS No. 3705/2022) opened locks of the racks and with help of other persons got the pellets filled in 50-60 bags and sold the same to a scrap vendor. On 30.12.2021, the petitioners assaulted one Abdul Khan R/o Mandhar and arrested Sahil Khan for offence of threat and subsequently Abdul Khan committed suicide by cutting himself with running train Amarkantak Express. On 10.01.2022, daughter of Late Abdul Khan namely Jannat Khan made a written complaint before the concerned police station regarding physical assault and death of her father and consequently after investigation Crime No. 01/2022 for offence punishable under Section 3(a) of the RPUP Act has been registered against both the petitioners on 10.01.2022. The charge-sheet/memorandum was issued to the petitioners on 31.01.2022 (Annexure P/2). Both the petitioners were arrested on 11.01.2022 and have been released on bail by the competent court vide order dated 14.01.2022. The petitioners being aggrieved with the charge-sheet dated 31.01.2022, filed writ petitions before this Court bearing WPS No.2425/2022 & WPS No. 2420/2022 and this Court vide order dated 07.04.2022 (Annexure P/3) has disposed of the writ petitions by observing as under:- “14. The petitioners being aggrieved with the charge-sheet dated 31.01.2022, filed writ petitions before this Court bearing WPS No.2425/2022 & WPS No. 2420/2022 and this Court vide order dated 07.04.2022 (Annexure P/3) has disposed of the writ petitions by observing as under:- “14. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the firm view that in the aforesaid legal position as it stands, the writ petition as of now can be disposed of directing the respondent authorities to ensure that the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner as of now may be proceeded further in respect of only the witnesses who are not common in the two proceedings i.e. in the departmental enquiry and the criminal case. However as regards the witnesses who are common in both the proceedings, their evidences which is to be recorded in the departmental enquiry, shall be recorded only after their evidence/statement is recorded in the criminal case, wherein the petitioner is an accused for the offence under Section 376 & 506 of the IPC.” 5. On 22.04.2022, the petitioners have submitted an application before enquiry officer mainly contending that this Court vide order dated 07.04.2022 passed in WPS No. 2425/2022 & WPS No. 2420/2022 has stopped the enquiry proceedings and copy will be given to the enquiry officer when it is made available. Thereafter, the enquiry officer has submitted its report on 27.04.2022, which has been forwarded to the petitioners on 27.04.2022 & 28.04.2022 directing them to submit explanation to the enquiry report. The memo and the finding of the enquiry report have been assailed by the petitioners in these writ petitions. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners submitted an application on 22.04.2022 before enquiry officer (RPF) and this Court vide order dated 07.04.2022 has partly allowed the petitions and directed the respondents not to examine the witnesses who are common witnesses for the criminal trial as well as in the departmental enquiry still the respondents continued with the enquiry proceedings though it is a bi-parte order, as such, it is incumbent upon them not to proceed with the enquiry as per direction given by this Court. Thus, the respondents have conducted the enquiry in violation of the direction given by this Court, as such the enquiry report deserves to be quashed. Thus, the respondents have conducted the enquiry in violation of the direction given by this Court, as such the enquiry report deserves to be quashed. He would further submit that the allegations leveled against the petitioner in the criminal case and the charges leveled against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings are one and the same. He would further submit that the list of witnesses enclosed along with the departmental charge-sheet would show that most of witnesses are common in the two proceedings and would pray for quashing of the finding recorded by the enquiry officer on 27.04.2022. 7. On the other hand, learned Deputy Solicitor General for the Union of India/respondents would submit that in the criminal case and in the departmental enquiry only two witness namely M.L. Sahu C.S.M./Mandhar and Ku. Jannat are common witnesses and rest of them are not common witnesses. He would further submit that the department has obtained the copy of order dated 07.04.2022 on 02.05.2022 before it, statement of M.L. Sahu was recorded on 25.03.2022 and the statement of Ku. Jannat was recorded on 14.04.2022 by the enquiry officer. As such, it cannot be said that the witnesses were allowed to be examined despite direction given by this Court. He would further submit that the petitioners have not supplied the order to the Enquiry Officer as evident from the memo dated 22.04.2022 (Annexure P/4) submitted by the petitioner as such the enquiry officer continued with the enquiry and submitted his report on 27.04.2022 and the copy of the same was supplied to the petitioner vide letter dated 28.04.2022 on their registered address and would pray for dismissal of the writ petitions. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents place on record with utmost satisfaction. 9. This Court vide order dated 26.05.2022 has stayed the effect and operation of the impugned enquiry report dated 28.04.2022. 10. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that this Court has only directed to withhold the witnesses who are common in criminal trial as well as in the departmental enquiry but have not clarified which witnesses were common whereas the respondents in their return have mentioned that only two witnesses namely M.L. Sahu CSM & Ku. 10. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that this Court has only directed to withhold the witnesses who are common in criminal trial as well as in the departmental enquiry but have not clarified which witnesses were common whereas the respondents in their return have mentioned that only two witnesses namely M.L. Sahu CSM & Ku. Jannat Khan were common witnesses out of which one witness M.L. Sahu was examined on 25.03.2024 much prior to passing of the order, therefore, the statement of M.L. Sahu cannot be ignored while submitting the report by the enquiry officer and the enquiry officer while submitting his report prima facie has not taken into consideration the statement of Ku. Jannat Khan. 11. The enquiry report demonstrates that the respondents to prove the misconduct of the petitioners have examined 14 witnesses namely Rajesh Kumar Sahu Assistant Sub-Inspector, Mahattam Yadav Constable, Rajesh Kumar Panchal Constable, Amarjeet Kumar Constable, Koushal Kishore Tiwari Sub-Inspector, M.L. Sahu CSM, Human Yadav, Sandeep Yadav, Bhagwat Sahu, Santosh Rao, S.B. Chate Assistant Security Commissioner, Smt. Hajrun Khan @ Bano, Sahil Khan & Ku. Jannat Khan. As such, it is incumbent upon the petitioners to submit the list of witnesses who are common in both the proceedings i.e. criminal trial as well as in the departmental enquiry which the petitioners miserably failed to submit. The report submitted by the enquiry officer would demonstrate that for proving the misconduct, prima facie the enquiry officer has not taken into consideration the statement of M.L. Sahu & Ku. Jannat Khan. Thus, it cannot be said that the enquiry has been conducted in violation of the direction given by this Court. The submission made by the petitioners that the enquiry has been conducted in violation of direction given by this Court, is also rejected on other ground also as the petitioners have not submitted copy of the charge-sheet of the criminal case to substantiate that who are the witnesses and whether they are common witnesses for both the proceedings or not. 12. Considering the well settled position of law that the disciplinary proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously in the absence of any legal bar. 12. Considering the well settled position of law that the disciplinary proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously in the absence of any legal bar. It is also evident that while seriousness of the charge leveled against the employees is a consideration, the same is not by itself sufficient to stop the departmental enquiry proceedings unless the case also involves complicated questions of law and fact. Even when the charge is found to be serious and complicated questions of fact and law that arise for consideration, the Court will have to keep in mind the fact that departmental proceedings cannot be suspended indefinitely or delayed unduly. It is also well settled position of law that there is no legal bar to hold 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 defense before the criminal Court. It is also well settled position of law that the Court while examining this question must also keep in mind that criminal trials get prolonged indefinitely, especially where the number of accused arraigned for trial is large 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 on-going disciplinary proceedings on other hand. It is also well settled position of law that an early conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings is in the interest of the employees itself. 13. In the present case, the petitioners were charge-sheeted for violation of the order of the superior, involvement in the theft and negligence towards duty and also for misbehaving, assault with the deceased Abdul Khan whereas the petitioners have been tried for commission of offence under Sections 306 & 506 of IPC though may be charged for instigating the deceased Abdul Khan for commit suicide and intimidation which is altogether different to the charges leveled against them. The charges leveled against the petitioners are as under:- 14. Thus, it is quite vivid that the charges in criminal case and in the departmental enquiry proceedings are altogether different. The charges leveled against the petitioners are as under:- 14. Thus, it is quite vivid that the charges in criminal case and in the departmental enquiry proceedings are altogether different. The issue with regard to the continuation of criminal trial and the departmental enquiry simultaneously has come up for consideration before Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited Vs. Girish V. & others reported in (2014) 3 SCC 636 wherein it has been held in paragraph No. 9, 10 & 11 as under:- “9. In A.P. SRTC v. Mohd. Yousuf Miyan (1997) 2 SCC 699 , this Court declared that the purpose underlying departmental proceedings is distinctly different from the purpose behind prosecution of offenders for commission of offences by them. While criminal prosecution for an offence is launched for violation of a duty that the offender owes to the society, departmental enquiry is aimed at maintaining discipline and efficiency in service. The difference in the standard of proof and the application of the rules of evidence to one and inapplicability to the other was also explained and highlighted only to explain that conceptually the two operate in different spheres and are intended to serve distinctly different purposes. 10. The relatively recent decision of this Court in Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. M.G. Vittal Rao (2012) 1 SCC 442 , is 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.” 11. We may also refer to the decision of this Court in Capt. (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.” 11. We may also refer to the decision of this Court in Capt. M Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd, (1999) 3 SCC 679 where this Court reviewed the case law on the subject to identify the following broad principles for application in the facts and circumstances of a given case: “(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 honor may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, administration may get rid of him at the earliest.” 15. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Avinash Sadashiv Bhosale (Dead) through Lrs. Vs. Union of India & others reported in (2012) 13 SCC 142 has held in paragraph 54 as under:- “54. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Avinash Sadashiv Bhosale (Dead) through Lrs. Vs. Union of India & others reported in (2012) 13 SCC 142 has held in paragraph 54 as under:- “54. This Court recently reiterated the legal principle that departmental proceedings can be conducted simultaneously to the criminal trial in the case of Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. M.G.Vittal Rao (supra). In this case, making reference to almost all the previous precedents, this Court has reiterated the legal position as follows:- (a) There is no legal bar for both proceedings to go on simultaneously. (b) 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. (c) 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. (d) 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. In our opinion, the principles culled out by this Court would be a complete answer to all the submissions made by Mr. Jain. 45. 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 Indian Penal Code. The proof of criminal charges was depended upon prosecution producing proof beyond reasonable doubt relating to the culpability of the appellant alongwith other persons. In the departmental proceedings, the basic charge was that 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. In the departmental proceedings, the basic charge was that 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.” 16. In view of the above legal and factual position, it is quite vivid that the criminal proceeding and departmental enquiry can be continued simultaneously and there is no bar to it, stay of departmental enquiry for such inordinate period is also not in the interest of the employee. Considering the submission of respondents that only two witnesses namely M.L. Sahu and Ku. Jannat Khan are witnesses of the criminal trial but from perusal of the enquiry report, it is not apparent that the charges have been found proved on the basis of these two witnesses. Thus, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the enquiry proceedings are continued in violation of the order passed by this Court, deserves to be rejected and accordingly it is rejected. 17. Also considering the well settle position of law that in the disciplinary proceeding, this Court while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot act as appellate authority or disciplinary authority and to interfere in the enquiry proceedings more particularly at the stage of submission of enquiry report, therefore, the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. Accordingly, dismissed. 18. The interim order passed by this Court on 26.05.2022 in both the writ petitions stands vacated. 19. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to submit their reply to the enquiry report which shall be considered by the disciplinary authority on its own merits without being influenced from dismissal of the writ petitions. 20. The interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.