JUDGMENT Tarun Agarwala, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the quashing of the departmental enquiry proceedings. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that on similar charges a criminal trial is pending against the petitioner and, on the same charges, a domestic enquiry has been initiated. Consequently, the departmental enquiry proceedings should be stayed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that two enquiries on the same charges could not proceed simultaneously and, therefore the domestic enquiry proceedings should be quashed.
3. The Supreme Court in number of decisions in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Kushal Bhan, , Kushewar Dubey v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Anr, , Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Anr., 1999 [82] FLR 627 and in State Bank of India and Ors. v. R.B. Sharma, 2004 LLR 950 have held that the proceedings in a criminal case and departmental proceedings could go on simultaneously, except where departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings are based on the same set of facts and that the evidence in both the proceedings were common, in that eventuality, the departmental proceedings should be kept in abeyance till the conclusion of the trial. However, in no circumstances, the departmental proceedings could be quashed.
4. The petitioner in the present case has prayed for the quashing of the departmental proceedings on the ground that both the criminal and departmental proceedings could not proceed simultaneously on the principles of "autre fois acquit" and the common law rule embodied in the maxim "Nemo debit bis vexari", which means that a person could not be put twice in peril for the same offence. In my opinion, the aforesaid principle is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case.
5. The law propounded by the Supreme Court, leaves no scope for doubt that the criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings can proceed simultaneously. However, where the criminal case as well as the departmental proceedings are based on the same offence and where evidence in the departmental proceedings could jeopardise the petitioner's case before the Criminal Court, in that event, the petitioner may apply before the departmental enquiry officer for a stay of the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the proceedings. This Court is not in a position to assess as to whether the evidence which is going to be led or has been led would be the same and that the evidence so led in the departmental proceedings would jeopardise the criminal proceedings. Consequently the best judge can be the enquiry officer to assess and guage the situation.
6. In view of the aforesaid, the relief claimed in the writ petition cannot be granted, The writ petition fails and is dismissed. It is however, open to the petitioner to move an appropriate application before the enquiry officer, who would consider and decide the matter in the light of the observations made above.