Simultaneous disciplinary and criminal proceedings may continue unless grave charges and prejudice justify staying the enquiry.

Departmental disciplinary proceedings may proceed alongside a criminal prosecution arising from the same facts, because the two processes serve different purposes and apply different standards of proof. A stay of the enquiry is not automatic; it is warranted only where the criminal charge is grave and involves complicated questions of fact and law, and where continuing the disciplinary process would seriously prejudice the employee's defence. Delay in disciplinary action is also relevant because public administration requires prompt resolution of misconduct matters. On these principles, the departmental enquiry could continue despite the pending criminal case.

---

---

Issues: Whether departmental disciplinary proceedings should be stayed pending criminal prosecution on connected facts.

Analysis: There is no legal bar to simultaneous departmental and criminal proceedings. Stay of disciplinary proceedings is not automatic and depends on the facts of each case. The relevant considerations are whether the criminal charge is grave and whether it involves complicated questions of fact and law so that the employee's defence in the criminal case may be prejudiced. The object, scope, and standard of proof in the two proceedings are distinct: criminal prosecution concerns proof of an offence beyond reasonable doubt, while departmental enquiry concerns misconduct under service rules and need not follow the Evidence Act or the criminal standard of proof. Delay in disciplinary action is itself a relevant factor because public administration requires prompt conclusion of such proceedings.

Conclusion: The stay of the departmental enquiry was not justified and the departmental proceedings could continue notwithstanding the pending criminal case.

Ratio Decidendi: Departmental proceedings may proceed simultaneously with criminal prosecution unless the criminal case involves grave charges with complicated questions of fact and law and continuation of the enquiry would seriously prejudice the delinquent's defence; stay is not a matter of course.

---