WP(C) 54/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI Heard Mr. AM Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and als o Mr. SN Sarma, learned Counsel appearing for the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. A First Information Report dated 5.4.2008 was filed before the Officer-i n-Charge, Dharmanagar Police Station, Tripura North in respect of theft of petro leum products from the Dharmanagar Depot of the respondent corporation that had occurred on 8.3.2008. In the aforesaid FIR, the petitioner is named as the accus ed. On the basis of the FIR lodged, Dharmanagar P.S. Case No.38 of 2008 under Se ction 381/408 IPC was registered. The petitioner was arrested in connection with the said case and presently he is on bail. On 7.5.2008, a departmental proceeding was drawn against the petitioner by issuing a charge sheet. The subject matter of the departmental proceeding aga inst the petitioner is substantially the same as has been alleged in the crimina l case filed. The petitioner submitted his written statement of defence on 22.5 .2008 and had participated in the enquiry held against him. The said enquiry has been completed and report thereof has been submitted to the disciplinary author ity on 31.10.2008. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner in the police case registered. It is in the above circumstances that the petitioner has instituted the writ petition seeking a direction from the Cou rt for halting further steps in the disciplinary proceeding against him and cont ending that it is the criminal case which should be tried and disposed of at the earliest. In support of this, reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in Capt. M. Paul Antony -Vs.- Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679. The contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner are plainly not acce ptable. No law has been laid down by the Apex Court either in Capt. M. Paul Anto ny (supra) or in any other decision that a criminal case and a departmental proc eeding on more or less the same charge(s) cannot proceed simultaneously. In Capt . M. Paul Antony (supra) the Apex Court had emphasized that, depending on the fa cts and circumstances of each case, the question of prejudice that may be caused to the petitioner by requiring him to disclose his defence if he has to submit his written statement in the departmental proceeding has to be considered by the Court. In the present case, the petitioner had voluntarily submitted his writte n statement of defence against the charge memo dated 7.5.2008 and had participat ed in the enquiry. If that be so, the question of prejudice cannot arise in the present case. In the said facts and also taking into account that there is no ba r for a departmental proceeding and a criminal case to proceed simultaneously ev en if the charges are similar, the Court is of the view that there is no merit w hatsoever in the writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs. As the disciplinary authority of the petitioner will now be at liberty t o proceed in the departmental enquiry against the petitioner, it would be desira ble that the said authority completes the said proceeding against the petitioner at an early date. To enable the disciplinary authority to so act, the petition er shall submit his response to the report of the enquiry officer, at which stag e the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner is presently pending.