Judgment 1. This is an application for quashing the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad in C.I.D. Case No. 3/87 (Tr. No. 97/95) whereby he has taken cognizance of an offence punishable under Secs. 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of police report. 2. The petitioner at the relevant time i.e. during 1972 to 1982 was posted as Accounts Assistant-cum-Cashier at Electric Supply Division, Jehanabad. On 27-10-1987, Sub-Inspector of Police lodged an F.I.R. with the Bidhyut Board Police Station Patna alleging inter alia that during the period in question the petitioner was entrusted with a sum of Rs. 1.36,900/ from Electric Division for purchase of Service Postage Stamps from Treasury Jehanabad. During this period Service Postage Stamps worth Rs. 61.900/ only was purchased and the remaining amount was neither deposited nor accounted for and it was suspected that the petitioner had defalcated the balance amount. 3. The investigation of the case remained pending for, seven years. Thereafter charge-sheet was submitted. It appears that four years prior to institution of the present case a departmental proceeding had been started against- the petitioner on the same and identical charges. The proceeding was conducted by the Director of Departmental Proceeding, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna before whom oral and documentary evidence were produced. The Director of Departmental Proceeding vide detailed order dated 8-4-1986 exonerated the petitioner from all charges (Annexure-3). The Director of Departmental Proceeding in his report considered the defence of the petitioner and the evidence brought on record in the proceeding. The Director of Departmental Proceeding considered following charges: "(1) Whereas you Shri Harihar Singh while posted as Accounts Assistant working as Cashier in Electric Supply Division, Jehanabad had drawn a sum of Rs. 1,36,900.00 in cash during the period from 1972-73 to 198182 (upto 4th January. 1982) for the purchase of service postage stamps but a sum of Rs. 61,900.00 only was deposited with the Sub-treasury. Jehanabad and the Sub treasury Jehanabad issued the service postage stamps for that value. The balance of Rs. 75,000.00 drawn by you for purchase of the service postsage stamps were however not deposited in the Subtreasury. The service postage stamps to the value of Rs. 75,000.00 (Rupees seventy five thousands) were not drawn from the Treasury and thus, you defalcated the said amounts to gross misconduct on your part. The balance of Rs. 75,000.00 drawn by you for purchase of the service postsage stamps were however not deposited in the Subtreasury. The service postage stamps to the value of Rs. 75,000.00 (Rupees seventy five thousands) were not drawn from the Treasury and thus, you defalcated the said amounts to gross misconduct on your part. (2) In the night of 3-2-1982, the night guard on duty saw someone entering into the cash room of the Electric Supply Division, Jehanabad. The night guard bolted from outside and raised alarm. Immediately thereafter, the officers and staff in the Colony assembled and the cash room was opened in their presence. You were however conspicuously absent at the time of occurrence, after the cash room was opened, an outsider very much kith and kin to you was found inside the cash room with the chest key used to be kept in your custody. The chest key, always kept in your custody should not have in any case gone in custody of an unknown man. It shows that the culprit had entered in the cash room with some ulterior motive with the chest key in connivance with you which amounts to gross misconduct on your part." However, both the charges could not be established in the proceeding although several witnesses were examined and various documents were examined. The allegation in the FIR is identical to the charges, which were framed in the Departmental Proceeding. 4 Mr. P.N. Pandey learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has placed strong reliance on P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar in which the Supreme Court has held that if a public servant is exonerated in a departmental proceeding in respect of certain charges he cannot be prosecuted in a Criminal Court in respect of the same charge. 5. The ratio of the above case applies with full force in the facts of this case. Accordingly. this application is allowed and the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad dated 24-3-1995 in C.I.D. Case No. 3/87 (Tr. No. 97/95) is quashed.