IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4734 of 2009 VIJAY KUMAR MISHRA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2/ 15/04/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner has been placed under suspension on 2.11.2007. Charge-sheet has also been served upon him on 1.11.2007. The allegations in the charge-sheet is that the petitioner in a drunken condition misbehaved with other staff. There were allegations by 11 staff against him of demand of illegal gratification from them for release of salary. The petitioner has already submitted his reply to the memo. of charges. Departmental proceedings have commenced. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the same allegations an F.I.R. has been lodged also against the petitioner. Thereafter, subjecting the petitioner both to a departmental proceeding and a criminal prosecution on the same charges is not justifiable. A copy of the written complaint lodged with the police is appended at annexure-1. It refers to the complaint of the eleven persons of demand of illegal gratification as the subject matter of the same. 2 The law stands settled that the mere institution of a criminal prosecution on similar allegations may, per se, not be sufficient to stay the departmental proceedings as the issues for consideration in the two are entirely different. While a criminal prosecution requires enforcement of the Pena Laws, a disciplinary enquiry requires enforcement of discipline in the office. The charge-sheet served upon the petitioner also relates to his conduct unbecoming of a Government servant which is not the subject matter of the F.I.R. In that view of the matter, this Court is not satisfied that for reason of pendency of the criminal prosecution the suspension deserves to be revoked. The writ application is disposed with the observation that the departmental proceeding having commenced, let the same be concluded within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, provided the petitioner himself co-operates. In the event of non-co-operation by the petitioner, the authorities are granted liberty to proceed ex parte also, if necessary, but only after recording their satisfaction and reasons of the non-co-operation by the petitioner and the need to proceed ex parte in light of the time period fixed by this Court. KC (Navin Sinha, J.) 3