3.The learned Single Judge has referred to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Captain M.Paul Anthony vs.Bharath gold Mines Limited and another reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 , and proceeded to grant relief in favour of the writ petitioner. A reading of the said decision would show that the Honourable Supreme court has permitted that the departmental action and criminal prosecution can proceed parallely and even simultaneously; only if both are founded on the same set of facts and complicated question of fact and law are involved, then and then only, the question of keeping disciplinary action in abeyance would arise. In the present case, it is true that an observation has been made that the allegations are the same and the witnesses are also almost common. But it is not the case of the respondent that complicated questions of fact and law are involved and that therefore, the disciplinary action must be stayed till the conclusion of the criminal case. In the grounds of appeal, it has been specifically contended that the witnesses in the disciplinary proceedings and the witnesses in the criminal case are not one and the same. In any event, we are of the view that tests laid down in Captain M.Paul Anthony case cannot be merely cited and relief granted straight away. It must be shown that the principles set https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ out in the said decision are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. But such an exercise was not
