JUDGMENT
Mishra, C.J.
1. Heard. The Courts invariably follow the rule of prudence of ordering stay of departmental proceeding, if on the allegations constituting the charges for the enquiry, any criminal charge is pending in a Court of law. Learned Single Judge has, however, made an exception in the instant case on the ground, inter alia as follows :
“It is apparent from the departmental charge-sheet that the disciplinary action is initiated against the petitioners on the ground that the acts attributed to the petitioners constitute major misconduct as per the service regulations. It is significant to note that there is no reference to beating of L.Ws. 1 to 3 in the departmental charge-sheet. Thus, prima facie, the contention that the criminal action and disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioners are grounded on or arise out of the same set of facts cannot be accepted.”
2. Since the appellants herein have sought stay of the departmental proceeding on the ground that they have been subjected to a criminal charge in the Court, precisely on the same allegations, it was for them to satisfy the Court that the materials for proving the charges in the Criminal Court were/are similar to the materials required to prove the charges, in the departmental proceeding or otherwise there are good reasons to keep the departmental proceeding in abeyance until the criminal Court finally decided the issue.
3. On the facts of the instant case, we have no reason to hold that learned Single Judge has committed any mistake in making the exception and permitting the departmental proceeding to continue simultaneously with the criminal charge in the Court. There is no merit in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
4. It is obvious, however, that the appellants who have been kept under suspension, pending departmental proceeding, are entitled to the admissible subsistence allowance and if there is no rule in respect of any subsistence allowance, to their full wages in accordance with law for the period of suspension and during the period of suspension. Any failure to pay the subsistence allowance may be taken as a cause of prejudice to the departmental proceeding against the interests of the delinquent employees and may provide accordingly a ground to hold that the enquiry is vitiated.