JUDGMENT
M.S. Liberhan, C.J.
1. Impugning the interim order dated August 23, 1999 made in W.P.M.P. No. 15383 of 1999 in W.P. No. 12601 of 1999 declining to slay the departmental enquiry but granting stay only in respect of passing of the final order basing on the enquiry report until further orders in the writ petition, this writ appeal is filed.
2. The learned Counsel for the appellant relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Depot Manager. A.P.S.R, T. Corporation v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya (1997-II-LLJ-902) (SC) contends that where the charges are different in both the criminal proceedings and the departmental enquiry and where the criminal proceedings are likely to take considerably long time, the departmental proceedings shall be proceeded with and finalised by passing appropriate final orders.
3. There is no dispute with regard to the proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the precedent cited by the learned Counsel, No orders have been passed by the learned single Judge staying the departmental proceedings but only passing of the final order is stayed. The charges levelled against the petitioner both in the criminal proceedings and departmental enquiry are substantially one and the same, though they are bifurcated in the departmental enquiry. The charges in the criminal proceedings are levelled for misappropriation whereas the charges in the departmental enquiry are misappropriation, falsification of record and absence from duty. There can be no gainsaying that in case the final order is permitted to be passed in departmental enquiry it would prejudicially affect the defence of the delinquent officer. Thus, we find no perversity or illegality in the discretion exercised by the learned single Judge. We see no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed. No costs.