ORDER : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY) The instant Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying the Court for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus by directing the respondents, viz., (i) to not proceed with departmental inquiry against the petitioner pursuant to charge- memo issued to the petitioner vide order No.CCC-HYD/AW/E2/DE- 04/24/4568/2024, dated 09.09.2024, (for short, ‘the impugned memo’) since on the same set of facts, the criminal case registered against the petitioner vide FIR No.10/RCT-CR-1/2024, dated 02.05.2024, on the file of P.S. A.C.B., City Range-I is pending against the petitioner; and (ii) to declare the action of respondents in not promoting the petitioner notionally as Grade-I Panchayath Secretary w.e.f. 19.01.2021 as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India . 2. Heard Mr. Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Mr. Vivek Jain, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The facts in brief are that petitioner was initially appointed by the respondents on compassionate ground on 01.08.2009. While in service, petitioner got periodical promotions and finally reached up to the stage of Field Assistant w.e.f. 07.11.2020. While working as Field Assistant, petitioner was implicated in a criminal case on the basis of which officials of the Anti-Corruption Bureau (A.C.B.) registered a crime against the petitioner vide F.I.R. dated 08.04.2024. In the process, an offence under Section 7 (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered against the petitioner. 4. It was alleged against the petitioner that, petitioner had demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.60,000/- from the complainant, viz., Sri Mohd. Abdul Gaffor, for doing undue favour. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested on 08.04.2024 and sent for judicial custody and later he was released on bail on 11.06.2024. 5. Basing on the above complaint, a charge-memo was issued to the petitioner on 09.09.2024 and subsequently the petitioner was placed under suspension w.e.f. 06.05.2024. The petitioner submitted detailed reply to the said charge-memo denying the charges leveled against him. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority had decided to proceed with departmental enquiry and an Inquiry Officer was appointed along with the Presenting Officer to present the case of prosecution before the Inquiry Officer. Along with the charge-memo, a list of documents and list of witnesses were also relied upon by the respondents to prove the charges framed against the petitioner. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority had decided to proceed with departmental enquiry and an Inquiry Officer was appointed along with the Presenting Officer to present the case of prosecution before the Inquiry Officer. Along with the charge-memo, a list of documents and list of witnesses were also relied upon by the respondents to prove the charges framed against the petitioner. 6. The grievance of petitioner is that while the nature of allegations in the F.I.R. as also in the charge-memo being the same, to prove the case, most of the witnesses that are examined would be the same. The petitioner therefore contended that in the event of witnesses in the criminal case (who are also witnesses in the departmental enquiry) are examined earlier than their evidence before the criminal case is completed, it may have an adverse impact so far as the trial is concerned; and therefore, prayed for allowing the writ petition by setting aside the departmental enquiry till evidence in the criminal case is completed. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that of late the stand of the Hon’ble Supreme Court had been very clear that two proceedings, viz., disciplinary proceedings and criminal trial, can go simultaneously and that there is no hard and fast rule for staying the departmental enquiry till criminal case is decided. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents further relied on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. , [ (1999) 3 SCC 679 ] and Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited vs. Girish V. , [ (2014) 3 SCC 636 ] , whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court had in very categorical terms held that the two proceedings, viz., disciplinary proceedings and criminal trial, can go simultaneously and there is no necessity to stall proceedings before the departmental enquiry unless there is so complicated an issue involved; and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on a perusal of the record, some of the admitted factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner while working as Field Assistant got trapped in an Anti-Corruption Bureau case for which an F.I.R. was registered on 08.04.2024 against the petitioner under the provisions of Section 7 -A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 . Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested and subsequently released on bail, and meanwhile departmental enquiry proceedings have also commenced. According to the petitioner, in the list of witnesses cited before the criminal case and the witnesses cited in the departmental enquiry, many of them are common witnesses and if their evidence is recorded in the departmental enquiry ahead of their evidence before the Trial Court, it can lead to far-reaching consequences. 10. It would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (1 supra), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held at paragraph No.22 as under, viz., “ 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. (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.” 11. Likewise, in the case of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited (2 supra), again the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealing with the same issue, held at paragraph Nos.15 and 16 as under, viz., “ 15. It is unnecessary to multiply decisions on the subject for the legal position as emerging from the above pronouncements and the earlier pronouncements of this Court in a large number of similar cases is well settled that disciplinary proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously in the absence of any legal bar to such simultaneity. It is also evident that while seriousness of the charge leveled against the employees is a consideration, the same is not by itself sufficient 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. In Paul Anthony (supra) this Court went a step further to hold that departmental proceedings can be resumed and proceeded even when they may have been stayed earlier in cases where the criminal trial does not make any headway. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. B.K.Meena, 1996(6) SCC 417 where this Court reiterated that there was no legal bar for both proceedings to go on simultaneously unless there is a likelihood of the employee suffering prejudice in the criminal trial. What is significant is that the likelihood of prejudice itself is hedged by providing that not only should the charge be grave but even the case must involve complicated questions of law and fact. Stay of proceedings at any rate cannot and should not be a matter of course. The following passage is in this regard apposite: “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, is a matter to be determined having regard to the facts and circumstances of a given case and that no hard and fast rules can enunciated in that behalf. The staying of disciplinary proceedings, is a matter to be determined having regard to the facts and circumstances of a given case and that no hard and fast 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. While it is not possible to enumerate the various factors, for and against the stay of disciplinary proceedings, we found it necessary to emphasize 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. … Indeed, in such cases, it is all the more in the interest of the charged officer that the proceedings are expeditiously concluded. Delay in such cases really works against him.” (emphasis supplied) 13. 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 defense 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 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 on-going 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.” 12. In the recent past, again in the case of Avinash Sadshiv Bhosale (dead) through LRs vs. Union of India , (2012) 13 SCC 142 theHon’ble Supreme Court held at paragraph No.54 as under, viz., “ 44. 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.” 13. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shashi Bhushan Prasad vs. Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force (C.I.S.F.) , [ (2019) 7 SCC 797 ] , referring to the earlier decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, held at paragraph No.19 as under, viz., “ 19. Jain.” 13. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shashi Bhushan Prasad vs. Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force (C.I.S.F.) , [ (2019) 7 SCC 797 ] , referring to the earlier decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, held at paragraph No.19 as under, viz., “ 19. We are in full agreement with the exposition of law laid down by this Court and it is fairly well settled that two proceedings criminal and departmental are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on an offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with the service Rules. The degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency. Even the rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, he cannot be convicted by a Court of law whereas in the departmental enquiry, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent on a finding recorded on the basis of ‘preponderance of probability’. Acquittal by the Court of competent jurisdiction in a judicial proceeding does not ipso facto absolve the delinquent from the liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the authority. This what has been considered by the High Court in the impugned judgment in detail and needs no interference by this Court. 14. From the aforesaid factual matrix of the case, what is clearly culled out is that it is not always necessary to stay the departmental enquiry proceedings pending trial in the criminal case. It is also settled position of law that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had in very categorical terms held that even though departmental enquiry gets stayed at the initial stage, however if for any reason the criminal trial is not concluded within a reasonable period of time or takes a sufficiently long time in its conclusion, the disciplinary authority should be permitted to proceed and conclude the departmental enquiry early than conclusion of the criminal trial. Therefore, the courts have been given the liberty to strike a balance between the need for a fair trial in the criminal case and also conclusion of the departmental action at a reasonably faster pace. The very purpose for initiation of the two proceedings are entirely different : one is the prosecution for the criminal act for the offence committed, and the other is to take appropriate action for the alleged misconduct committed in the course of discharge of official duties by the petitioner. The degree of proof required in both the case also is entirely different. 15. Another aspect which cannot be lost sight of the fact is that when an employee is at the fag end of his service, if the departmental enquiry gets stayed pending the criminal case against such an employee, then afterwards the employer would not be in a position to undergo any major punishment and would have to retire the employee with consequential benefits except withholding of the pension that too with the sanction and approval of the State. It was in these circumstances that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had permitted departmental enquiry to commence in the event if criminal trial is not concluded within a reasonable period of time or is getting inordinately delayed. There is yet another angle to be looked into subject to the fact that criminal trial proceeds at a faster pace, i.e., the examination of the common witnesses. Invariably, there are a few witnesses who are sought as witnesses along with the F.I.R. and who are also sought as witnesses along with the charge-memo. In the said circumstances, if the witnesses sought in the departmental enquiry are also common witnesses in the criminal case, and if they are examined before the inquiry officer earlier than a statement being recorded before the Trial court, the defence of delinquent employee would get revealed and it may have an adverse impact so far as outcome of criminal case is concerned. It was in this context that in the recent past the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also various High Courts have approved of the procedure whereby the common witnesses have been permitted to be examined later in the departmental enquiry subsequent to their evidence is recorded in the criminal case, and that the departmental enquiry may proceed and move ahead with all the other witnesses in the departmental enquiry. In certain cases the departmental enquiry is also permitted to be proceeded further if the presenting officer is of the view that the charges leveled against the petitioner can be proved even without recording of evidence of common witness or where the charges leveled against the delinquent employee can be proved with other witnesses who have not been sought in the criminal trial. 16. For all the aforesaid reasons and also taking into consideration the aforesaid settled legal position by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also by various High Courts including the High Court for the State of Telangana in the above cited decisions, this Bench is of the considered opinion that the instant Writ Petition can be allowed partly by directing the respondents to proceed with the departmental enquiry. However, the examination of common witnesses as of now may be deferred till they are examined before the criminal court. However, the respondents are at liberty, if they find that the criminal trial is getting unreasonably delayed without any sufficient progress, to proceed further with the departmental enquiry and get the common witnesses in the two proceedings examined before the inquiry officer and conclude the departmental enquiry. The question to be considered in the said circumstances is what would be the reasonable period of time to permit the respondents to revive the disciplinary proceedings insofar as the material common witnesses are concerned. This aspect of reasonable time may differ from case to case. There could be instances where the delinquent employee may have a long period of service left before he attains the age of superannuation where in some cases the delinquent employee may have a short period of time left before he reaches the age of superannuation. So it is this fact which needs to be looked into and appreciated by the disciplinary authority before taking a decision for revival of departmental enquiry for recording evidence of material common witnesses. 17. So it is this fact which needs to be looked into and appreciated by the disciplinary authority before taking a decision for revival of departmental enquiry for recording evidence of material common witnesses. 17. With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition stands allowed in part by granting relief to the petitioner to the extent of staying recording of evidence of the material common witnesses both before the criminal court as also before the departmental enquiry with the rider that the respondents would however be at liberty to proceed further with the departmental enquiry in the event if the criminal case does not progress at a reasonably fast pace and gets delayed without much progress. No costs. 18. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.