- (1.) : 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 25.11.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 927/2008, by which the learned Single Judge had been pleased to dismiss the writ petition and thus refused to stay the departmental proceeding against the petitioner/appellant herein, for which he had filed the writ petition.
(2.) A departmental proceeding had been initiated against the petitioner/appellant on the charge that he had produced a forged caste certificate showing him to be a member of the Scheduled Tribe, although by caste he was an OBC belonging to the caste, Yadav, and therefore, he was put under suspension and was asked to submit his explanation on the following charge: "On verification of your antecedent, it has been observed that you have given false information introducing yourself as "Ritu Kumar Mahli son of Basudeo Mahli  while you are known as Ritu Yadav @ Ritu Mahto son of late Galu Mahto (yadav) at the time of employment and got employment . A criminal case bearing Burmu P.S. Case No. 33/2007 had also been instituted against the petitioner/appellant under section 419/420/467/468/471/406/409 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which is pending trial. The petitioner/appellant, therefore, filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge seeking stay of the departmental proceeding on the ground that the departmental proceeding as also the criminal case on the same set of charge should not be allowed to proceed. The learned Single Judge, however, relying upon the decision delivered in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mins Limited reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679, was pleased to hold that there is no bar in proceeding with the departmental proceeding along with the criminal case as clear cut ratio in the aforesaid decision has been laid down to the effect that departmental proceedings and the proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously though separately. This decision, however, held that if the departmental proceeding and the criminal proceeding are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is grave in nature which involves complicated questions of law, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceeding till conclusion of the criminal case. The learned Single Judge, on a consideration of the facts, had been pleased to hold that the instant matter is simply a case of securing employment on the basis of a forged caste certificate and that is not a complicated question so as to stay the departmental proceedings.
(3.) ON the basis of the ratio of the decision referred to hereinbefore, which is relied upon by the learned Single Judge, we find no substance in this appeal as there is no bar that the departmental proceeding and the proceedings in a criminal case cannot proceed simultaneously and the instant matter cannot be bracketed in a manner which could persuade the Court to hold that the departmental proceeding cannot go on simultaneously.;