Disciplinary proceedings may continue alongside criminal trial unless grave charges and complex issues justify a stay.

Disciplinary proceedings need not be stayed merely because a criminal trial on the same or similar facts is pending. Criminal and departmental proceedings may ordinarily run simultaneously because they serve different purposes, apply different standards of proof, and follow different enquiry rules. A stay depends on the facts, including whether the charges are grave and whether the criminal case raises complicated questions of law and fact that could prejudice the employee's defence. The lower courts erred by treating stay as automatic without assessing the seriousness of the allegations or the special circumstances. The stay of the departmental proceedings was therefore unjustified.

---

---

Issues: Whether disciplinary proceedings should be stayed merely because a criminal trial on the same or similar facts is pending.

Analysis: The governing principle is that criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings can ordinarily proceed simultaneously. A stay of disciplinary action is not automatic and must depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The relevant considerations are whether the charges are of a grave nature and whether the criminal case involves complicated questions of law and fact such that the employee's defence may be prejudiced. The criminal process and the disciplinary process serve different purposes, apply different standards of proof, and operate under different rules of enquiry. The courts below proceeded on the erroneous premise that departmental proceedings had to be stayed in every case where criminal trial on similar charges was pending, without assessing the special facts of the case or the seriousness of the allegations.

Conclusion: The stay of the departmental proceedings was unjustified and the orders directing such stay were liable to be set aside.

---