ORDER : Pulla Karthik, J. This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents not to proceed with the departmental enquiry pursuant to charge memo dated 5.9.2025 till the conclusion of criminal case. 2. Heard Sri M.Srikanth, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.V.Umadevi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and perused the record. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that while he was working as Additional General Manager (Administration), a criminal case was foisted against him stating that he has colluded with some of the scrap merchants and diverted the scrap material and in connection with the same, a crime was registered under Section 120-B IPC, Sections 7, 8, 12 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 vide F.I.R. Rc.No.09(A)/2022 dated 2.6.2022 on the file of CBI, Hyderabad. Subsequently, charge sheet was filed in the matter vide C.C.No.25 of 2025, wherein petitioner was arrived as Accused No.9 in the said criminal case. The purport of the charge is that the petitioner had connived with A1 and A2 and had facilitated of illegal diversion of metal blocks and in return, petitioner has received gold rings as gift from A1. As there was prolonged suspension, petitioner approached this Court by way of filing W.P.No.4666 of 2024 and the same is pending. Be that as it may, charge sheet has been filed recently. In the memorandum of charges dated 5.9.2025, very same allegations were made against the petitioner to that of criminal case vide C.C.No.25 of 2025 holding that the petitioner is involved in criminal conspiracy and had accepted illegal gratification, thus committed misconduct as defined in Rule 9(17) of MIDHANI CDA Rules. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the charge is based on the very same set of facts to that of criminal case. The article of charge is verbatim to that of criminal case and it can be seen that the witnesses are also one and the same. Further, the evidence in both the criminal case and in the departmental enquiry is also one and the same. Therefore, if departmental enquiry is proceeded with, petitioner’s defence in the criminal case would jeopardize. The article of charge is verbatim to that of criminal case and it can be seen that the witnesses are also one and the same. Further, the evidence in both the criminal case and in the departmental enquiry is also one and the same. Therefore, if departmental enquiry is proceeded with, petitioner’s defence in the criminal case would jeopardize. Therefore, petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court to direct the respondents not to proceed with departmental enquiry till the conclusion of criminal case in C.C.No.25 of 2025 on the file of Principal Special Judge for CBI cases, Hyderabad. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Chaman Lal Goyal , (1995) 2 SCC 570 4. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, on filing counter, submits that this is the third round of litigation. Earlier, petitioner filed W.P.No.1709 of 2023, challenging his suspension, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 4.12.2023, directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 5.12.2022 and examine his case for reinstatement into service without reference to the CBI letter dated 1.3.2023 and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. The entire case of the petitioner is in tune with the representation dated 5.12.2022 and law prevailing vide speaking order dated 3.2.2024. Challenging the said speaking order, petitioner filed W.P.No.4666 of 2024 reiterating the same grounds that were raised in the earlier W.P.No.1709 of 2022. The learned Standing Counsel further submits that MIDHANI is not in receipt of the charge sheet and the petitioner has not enclosed the same. Thus, the point of fact cannot be verified. Hence the contention of the petitioner has no value in the current stage. Further, the allegation in the criminal case is that the petitioner, in collusion with other Accused had facilitated easy passage to take out the scrap material from MIDHANI premises. The CBI has proceeded against the petitioner under the provisions of various criminal laws, whereas the Article of charge dated 5.9.2025 issued to the petitioner is under relevant provisions of MIDHANI CDA Rules and the departmental proceedings will be dealt in accordance with the provisions of Conduct and Discipline Rules applicable for executives of MIDHANI. If the petitioner is not guilty, the departmental proceedings cannot have any impact on the criminal trial. If the petitioner is not guilty, the departmental proceedings cannot have any impact on the criminal trial. It is further stated that the petitioner was issued charge memo dated 5.9.2025 with specific advice to submit explanation within a stipulated period of time and the petitioner instead of submitting explanation, filed the present case seeking not to proceed with departmental enquiry till the conclusion of criminal case. Petitioner’s contention that the departmental enquiry reflect/mirror the criminal charges is irrelevant. Even if the facts overlap, the enquiry is administrative in nature and MIDHANI cannot be expected to wait indefinitely till the conclusion of criminal trial, which may take years. The departmental proceedings are governed by the service rules and aim to determine whether the petitioner has violated internal codes. Petitioner’s claim that the charges are based on mere allegations is a matter for adjudication and not a ground to stall the proceedings. It is further stated that the respondent Company has a statutory obligation to act on the credible allegations of misconduct. The reliance on common witnesses or documents does not create a legal bar. The respondent has evaluated the present case and found sufficient grounds to proceed. Petitioner’s defence in the criminal case is not prejudiced merely because the departmental enquiry is underway and on the contrary, delaying the enquiry would compromise institutional discipline and encourage misconduct. The sole contention of the petitioner is that since CBI case is pending before the trial court, disciplinary proceedings cannot be proceeded with, is a wrong notion. In support of the contentions, the learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments. (1) State of Rajasthan v. Shri B.K.Meena and others , (1996) 6 SCC 417 (2) Prem Nath Bali v. Registrar, High Court of Delhi and another, (2015) 6 SCC 415 (3) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others v.T.Srinivas, (2004) 7 SCC 442 5. Having regard to the submissions made by the respective parties and on perusal of the record, it is relevant to refer to the Charge Memo dated 5.9.2025, which reads as under: “(1) Charge-I: That Shri S.Narasinga Rao, Staff No.0501, the then Addl. General Manager (Security & Admin) being in charge of Security Dept of MIDHANI in furtherance of criminal conspiracy with the Scrap dealers, had obtained illegal gratification in the form of Diamond ring from the Scrap dealers of MIDHANI. General Manager (Security & Admin) being in charge of Security Dept of MIDHANI in furtherance of criminal conspiracy with the Scrap dealers, had obtained illegal gratification in the form of Diamond ring from the Scrap dealers of MIDHANI. Hence, Charged Officer has failed to follow the provisions under Rule 4(1)(xv), 4(1)(xviii), 4(1)(i), 4(1)(ii), 4(1)(iii), 4(1)(vi) and 4(1)(xxi) and thereby committed “Misconduct” as defined u/s Rule 9(2), 9(5) and 9(17) of CDA Rules of MIDHANI and rendered himself liable for disciplinary action under Rule 29 of the MIDHANI CDA Rules. (2) That the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has conducted an investigation into the removal of valuable material from MIDHANI in 2022 wherein it appeared that Shri S.Narasinga Rao, Staff No.0501, hereinafter referred to as the “Charged Officer” or “CO” had conspired with few Outside scrap dealers to remove valuable raw/semi-finished/finished material illegally from MIDHANI directly and under the guise of scrap. In the course of investigation, it was revealed that on several instances, valuable material was removed and attempted to be removed from MIDHANI, and it appeared that the Charged Officer has facilitated the same. 3. That a surprise raid was conducted by CBI at MIDHANI’s Hyderabad Plant premises on 02-Jun-2022 and CBI intercepted a four-wheeler private vehicle at around 22:40 HRs on 02-Jun- 2022, bearing registration number TS13EA0380 which was taking out valuable material from MIDHANI in a clandestine manner. The material was recovered by CBI from the said vehicle amounting to approximately 950 kgs. In view of the recovery and further investigation by CBI on 2 nd and 3 rd June 2022 (RUD-1) before independent witnesses, evidence I the form of Whatsapp conversations between Shri S.Prem Kumar (Constable, Telangana State Protection Force) and Shri Mohd. Waseem, an Outside Scrap dealer was secured wherein they have discussed the giving of a diamond ring to the Charged Officer as gratification for his role in the theft of valuable material from MIDHANI. In view of the same, the presence of Charged Officer i.e. Shri S.Narasinga Rao was then secured by the CBI, and upon being confronted by said evidence, CO has admitted before the independent witnesses that he had indeed received a diamond ring from Shri Mohd. Waseem in lieu of giving them easy passage to take the scrap material in excess of tendered quantities from MIDHANI campus. Waseem in lieu of giving them easy passage to take the scrap material in excess of tendered quantities from MIDHANI campus. In view of the evidence against the Charged Officer for the role played by him to cause undue advantage to the scrap dealers Shri Mohd. Nayeem Nayyar & Shri Mohd Waseem and for obtaining illegal gratification from them as motive or reward in lieu of providing that undue advantage towards these Scrap dealers, Charged Officer was arrested by CBI (RUD-8)”. 6. A reading of the above, it is clear that the impugned charge memo dated 5.9.2025 is issued on the very same set of facts to that of criminal case i.e. C.C.No.25 of 2025 pending on the file of Special Judge for CBI cases, Hyderabad. The decisions relied on by the respondents are distinguishable to the facts of the present case. In State of Rajasthan v. Shri B.K.Meena (supra), it is held as under: “…………The respondent has already disclosed his defence in his elaborate and detailed statement filed on 9.2.1993. There is no question of his being compelled to disclose his defence in the disciplinary proceedings which would prejudice him in a criminal case………………..”. 7. The judgment relied on in Prem Nath Bali v. Registrar, High Court of Delhi (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as it deals with only jurisdiction and departmental enquiry only. 8. In Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others v.T.Srinivas (supra), it was held as under; “We think the above ratio of law laid down by this Court applies aptly to the facts of the present case also. It is also to be noted that in Capt. M.Paul Anthony case (supra), this court has accepted the principle laid down in Rajasthan case (supra) As stated above, in the case in hand, both the tribunal and the High Court proceeded as if a departmental enquiry and a criminal trial could not proceed simultaneously, hence, they stayed the departmental enquiry which by itself, in our opinion, is contrary to the principles laid down in the above cited cases. We are of the opinion that both the tribunal and the High Court proceeded on an erroneous legal principle without taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case and proceeded as if the stay of disciplinary proceedings is a must in every case where there is a criminal trial on the very same charges……………………”. 9. In view of the facts and circumstances explained above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned charge memo dated 5.9.2025 is issued on the very same set of facts to that of criminal case vide C.C.No.25 of 2025 on the file of Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents not to proceed with departmental enquiry pursuant to the impugned Charge Memo dated 5.9.2025 till the conclusion of criminal case vide C.C.No.25 of 2025 on the file of Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No costs.