IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1953 of 2009 NAGENDRA, S/o Late Sheodas Pradhan, resident of village- Prasaganda, P.S.- Sikraul, District-Buxar at present Junior Engineer (Suspended) Office- of the Engineer-in-chief -cum - Additional Commissioner-Cum-Special Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bailey Road, Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Patna ….. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary, Road Construction Department, Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey road, Patna, Bihar 2. The Engineer-in-chief -cum -Additional Commissioner- Cum-Special Secretary, Road Construction Department, Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna, Bihar 3. Shree Narendra Prasad, Conducting Officer-cum-Chief Engineer, Ganga bridge project, Road Construction Department, Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna, Bihar 4. District Engineer, District Board, Hajipur (Vaishali) 5. Assistant Mining Officer, District Mining Office, Hajipur (Vaishali) ….. Respondents ----------- 02 09.02.2009 Petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 25.10.2007 by virtue of which a departmental proceeding has been initiated against him for the set of charges annexed with annexure-1. The background to the said departmental enquiry is that the petitioner was caught red-handed receiving certain illegal gratification by the Vigilance Department on a complaint made to them against the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that even a vigilance case has been instituted against the petitioner for the - 2 - same charge of receiving illegal gratification. In that view of the matter for a similar set of charges both the criminal case as well as the departmental proceeding should not be allowed to continue. He wants quashing of the departmental proceeding if it is not stayed during the pendency of the criminal proceeding. The Court is constrained to record taking judicial notice of the facts that criminal case of the kind remain pending for years together and no finality is reached for decades. If the departmental proceeding is quashed or stayed on that ground then the disciplinary authorities would be prevented from going into the set of charges which has a different implication. Since it is well established that the ambit of the departmental enquiry and the criminal case are totally different the Court is not satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for quashing of the departmental enquiry on the ground mentioned above. In fact it is well laid out that the Court should not quash a chargesheet or stay departmental proceeding at the threshold as it will be pre- judicial to the interest of discipline and power of disciplinary authority to proceed in such matters. The writ application is misplaced. It is dismissed. P.K./rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)