IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.33980 of 2006 RAM NANDAN PRASAD SRIVASTAVA Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 7 07-08-2008 Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Ojha, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jharkhandi Upadhaya, the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner through this application prays for the quashing of the order dated 16.6.2006 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Katihar ,in Barsoi P.S. Case No.91 of 1992, G.R. No.1869 of 1992, whereby the petition of the petitioner for his discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. has been rejected. The submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate had erred in rejecting his petition since he had per force been made to face three different means of prosecution simultaneously on the same set of facts, namely, a departmental proceeding , the instant case as also the matter pending before the C.B.I. The issue based on the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is no more res integra in view of the dicision of the Apex Court in Capt.M. Paul Anthony –Vrs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679. There is a consensus of judicial opinion on a basic principle that proceedings in a criminal case and departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously since they operate in distinct and different jurisdictional areas. That apart the standard of - 2 - proof required in those proceedings is also different from those required in a criminal case. In a departmental proceeding the standard of proof is one of preponderance of probabilities whereas in a criminal case the charge has to be proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts. In view of the discussions made in the preceding paragraph I find no merit in this application which is dismissed. ( Abhijit Sinha, J) NKS/-