IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11498 of 2010 1. Satya Narayan Singh S/O Laxman Singh R/O Vill.- Khajuauta, P.S.- Udwant Nagar, Distt.- Bhojpur Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 2. D.G. Of Police, Bihar, Patna 3. D.I.G., Koshi Kshetra, Saharsa 4. S.P., Supaul 5. S.D.P.O., Birpur, Distt.- Supaul ---------------------------------- 2. 18.11.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. The relief sought is to stay Departmental Proceeding No. 8 of 2007 against the petitioner who is a Sub inspector of police till final disposal of Vigilance PS Case No. 99 of 2007 (Special Case No. 30 of 2007) pending before the Special Judge, Vigilance II, at Patna. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the vigilance case is under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, for having demanded illegal gratification from the informant, Rubaina Khatoon. The charge in the departmental proceeding is the same for allegedly having demanded illegal gratification from Rubaina Khatoon. The evidence shall be common. The departmental proceeding ought to be stayed till disposal of the criminal case. The earlier Superintendent of Police on the request of the petitioner had rightly stayed the departmental proceeding on 10.7.2009. The subsequent Superintendent of Police without any justification recommenced the proceeding on 5.10.2009. The petitioner may be prejudiced in the criminal case if he is required to disclose his defence in the departmental proceedings. The object and purpose of a criminal prosecution and a departmental proceeding are entirely different. The standards of 2 proof in one are beyond reasonable doubt and preponderance of probability in the other. The purpose of a criminal prosecution is to punish the offender for deviating from the standards of behaviour laid down by the society, for an offence against the society. The punishment may be imprisonment. In a departmental proceeding the purpose is of punishment for deviant behaviour unbecoming of a person in government service. The punishment cannot be imprisonment but only under the service conditions. There is no uniform theory or principle that merely because there is similarity or commonality between the allegations in the criminal case and in the departmental proceeding in all circumstances as a matter of rule the latter should be stayed. The decision has to rest on a whole host of other factors which shall depend and follow according to the facts and circumstances of the case. The law on this aspect considered and explained in (1999) 3 SCC 679 (Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold mines Ltd is:- “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 3 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, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest.” The petitioner has been chargesheeted in the police case, taken into custody and released on bail. In the departmental proceeding the said Rubaina Khatooon has deposed as a witness and supported the allegations. The Court is satisfied that in so far as the departmental proceedings are concerned, nothing more was required to be done to prove the charges. The petitioner was not aggrieved and did not question the order dated 5.10.2009 recommencing the departmental proceeding after it was stayed on 10.7.2009. He took his chance. The enquiry report indicts him. All objections by the petitioner remain open to be considered in accordance with law by the disciplinary authority. The enquiry report has been submitted. The departmental proceedings have not been concluded. The writ application is premature. Let the departmental proceeding be concluded expeditiously in accordance with law. The writ application is dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)