ORDER : Munnuri Laxman, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashment of chrgesheet dated 07.09.2021 issued by the respondent No.4-the Disciplinary Authority to the writ petitioner. 2. The case of the writ-petitioner is that while the petitioner was posted as a Constable at Mahila Thana, Churu, the FIR No.0125/2021 was lodged at Police Station Kotwali Churu against her for offence under Sections 454, 380, 414, 411, 201 of IPC and Sections 7, 25(1-AA) of the Arms Act. On the basis of the above FIR, the disciplinary proceedings were commenced by issuing the chargesheet dated 7. 09.2021. According to the petitioners, the charges in the disciplinary proceedings and in the criminal case are based on the same set of facts. If the departmental enquiry is allowed to continue, the petitioner is greatly prejudiced in defending his criminal case and he has to disclose his defence in the disciplinary proceedings before the trial has been commenced in the criminal case, which would have great prejudice to him. Therefore, the petitioner seeks quashment of chargesheet pending the decision in the criminal case. 3. The reply filed by the respondents shows that the petitioner was posted at Mahila Thana, Churu at the relevant time. When the petitioner was on Sentry duty on 27.05.2021 from 2 pm to 6 pm, she allegedly took INSAS Rifle from the store of HM Office and hid in the house of one Prakash, who is her neighbour. In this regard, an FIR was registered and subsequently, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Churu, who submitted his report dated 4.06.2021 giving preliminary finding that the petitioner deliberately neglected duties; misused the position of Sentry guard and violated the departmental rules leading to misconduct, dereliction of duties. On the basis of the said report, the departmental proceedings were commenced by issuing the chargesheet. The pleadings also show that there is no bar in conducting the departmental proceedings and proceedings in criminal case simultaneously. Both the criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings are on different facts and it is not a fit case to grant relief to the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for both the parties. 5. Both the criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings are on different facts and it is not a fit case to grant relief to the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for both the parties. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the writ-petitioner has vehemently contended that the foundational facts for chargesheet under the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and if both the proceedings are simultaneously continued, the writ-petitioner would be greatly prejudiced in defending his criminal case and he was bound to make out his defence in the departmental proceedings, which would have the impact on his defence in the criminal trial. Therefore, the departmental proceedings cannot be allowed to continue till the criminal proceedings are concluded. 6. The learned counsel has also brought to the notice of the Court the charge No.2 of the chargesheet issued under departmental proceedings and contended that the facts in the chargesheet and the facts in criminal case are same and identical. Therefore, the simultaneously conducting of departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings are unfair and unjust. Such simultaneous proceedings have the prejudicial effect on the right of the petitioner in defending the criminal case. Therefore, he prayed for allowing the writ petition. 7. The learned Government Counsel appearing for the respondents has contended that there is no bar in conducting the departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings simultaneously. According to him, the charges in the departmental proceedings and criminal case are different and they are not identical set of facts though some facts are overlapping. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to restrain the respondents from proceeding in the departmental enquiry merely because the criminal case against the petitioner is pending. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. The criminal case and the departmental proceedings were aroused when the petitioner working as a Constable at Mahila Thana, Churu. The FIR was lodged against the petitioner at Police Station Kotwali Churu with the following allegations:- 9. The chargesheet issued in the departmental proceedings alleges the following irregularities, which lead to charges No.1 to 4, which are reproduced hereunder:- 10. The criminal case and the departmental proceedings were aroused when the petitioner working as a Constable at Mahila Thana, Churu. The FIR was lodged against the petitioner at Police Station Kotwali Churu with the following allegations:- 9. The chargesheet issued in the departmental proceedings alleges the following irregularities, which lead to charges No.1 to 4, which are reproduced hereunder:- 10. A close scrutiny of the allegations in the FIR and the allegations in the departmental chargesheet show that the FIR was related to the offence of theft, lurking house-trespass, dishonestly receiving the stolen property, assisting in concealment of stolen property and causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender as well as offences related to Arms Act. The charges under the disciplinary proceedings are relating to dereliction of duties and negligence while she was performing the duties of Sentry guard on 27.05.2021 from 2 pm to 6 pm. 11. The first charge is relating to unauthorisedly leaving the Sentry duty without permission during the duty hours. The third charge is relating to disappearance of weapon from the police station during Sentry duty hours of the writ-petitioner and the fourth charge is relating to negligence and irresponsible conduct while discharging the Sentry duties. The aforesaid three charges in the departmental proceedings are unconnected with the facts, which are the foundation for the criminal case. A close scrutiny of charge No.2 of departmental proceedings show that it relates to preventing the officers by the petitioner from searching her house and certain misleading conduct. The allegations pertaining to this charge were also narrated in the criminal case lodged against the writ-petitioner. Except the charge No.2, there is no similar set of facts with regard to charges under departmental proceedings and criminal charges. 12. The principles governing the simultaneous continuation of departmental and criminal proceedings have been very well settled by the various decisions of the Apex Court and more particularly, in the case of M.Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr, reported in (1999) 3 Supreme Court Cases 679, wherein the Apex Court held as under:- “22. The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are : (i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are : (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, administration may get rid of him at the earliest.” 13. From a close scrutiny of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of M.Paul Anthony’s case (cited supra), it is clear that there is no legal bar for simultaneous proceedings both in departmental and criminal proceedings. However, it is not desirable, advisable or appropriate to proceed with the disciplinary enquiry when a criminal case is pending on identical charges. If there is identical charges, allowing the employer to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings results the employee’s right of defence gets prejudiced. However, it is not desirable, advisable or appropriate to proceed with the disciplinary enquiry when a criminal case is pending on identical charges. If there is identical charges, allowing the employer to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings results the employee’s right of defence gets prejudiced. Apart from that, the foundations for both the proceedings must be based on identical and similar set of facts; and the second thing is that such a criminal charge must be grave in nature, which must involve complicated questions of law and facts. 14. In the present case, from the comparative reading of the charges in criminal case and the disciplinary proceedings, it is clear that criminal case is based on charge of theft, trespass, concealment of stolen property and causing disappearance of evidence, whereas the departmental charges clearly relating to certain conduct of the writ petitioner while she was discharging her duties as Sentry and negligence in allowing the misplacement of weapon from the police station during her Sentry duties. These charges are nothing to do with the allegations relating to the criminal case. However, there are certain overlapping facts with regard to charge No.2 in criminal case. In fact, there is no charge relating to charge No.2 in the criminal case. The charge No.2 is pertaining to the conduct of the writ-petitioner at her house when the police officials wanted to inspect her house with regard to missing weapon from the police station. In fact, there is no charge in the criminal case that the writ-petitioner prevented the officers from discharging their duties so that there can be identical charges in both the departmental and criminal proceedings. Further, the facts relating to second charge are not relating to any grave charge and do not involve any complicated question of law and facts, so that this Court can interdict the departmental proceedings. 15. In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Stay order, if any granted, stands vacated.