Parallel departmental and criminal proceedings may continue; stay of disciplinary inquiry is exceptional and was refused here.

Departmental and criminal proceedings may proceed simultaneously, as there is no legal bar to parallel action and the standard of proof in each is different. A stay of disciplinary inquiry is justified only in exceptional cases where the charges are identical or closely similar, the criminal case involves grave allegations, and complicated questions of law and fact make continuation unfair or imprudent. The administrative interest in prompt disciplinary action must also be weighed. On these principles, the request to stay the departmental proceedings was rejected and the inquiry was allowed to continue.

---

---

Issues: Whether departmental inquiry proceedings should be stayed during the pendency of a criminal trial arising out of the same alleged misconduct.

Analysis: There is no legal bar to parallel disciplinary and criminal proceedings. Stay of the departmental inquiry is not automatic and depends on the facts of the case. A stay may be justified only where the charges are identical or similar and the criminal case involves grave allegations with complicated questions of law and fact, and even then the administrative interest in expeditious disciplinary action must be weighed. The standard of proof in the two proceedings is different, and disciplinary proceedings should not be allowed to be delayed indefinitely merely because a criminal trial is pending.

Conclusion: The request to stay the departmental proceedings was rejected and the proceedings were allowed to continue.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed because the pendency of the criminal case did not justify suspension of the departmental inquiry.

Ratio Decidendi: Departmental proceedings may proceed simultaneously with criminal proceedings, and a stay is warranted only in exceptional cases where identical charges and complicated questions of law and fact make continuation of the inquiry unfair or imprudent.

---