Judgment :- K.A.Swami, C.J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 12. 1996 passed by the learned single Judge, dismissing W.P. 10046 of 1995, in which the petitioner/appellant sought for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to refrain from proceeding further with the departmental proceeding in pursuance of the charge memo issued by the 1st respondent in proceedings No. MMA/Eng./91/10/2140 dated 10. 1991 till a finality is arrived in the criminal proceedings made in Rc. NO.16/S/1989, dated 310. 1989 pending on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrates Court, Egmore, Madras and enforcement proceedings made in Reference No. T.4/21/52/City/95 dated 21.03.1995 before the Enforcement Directorate, Southern Zone, Madras. 2. Learned Single Judge, relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in State of Rajastan v. B.K. Meena and others , 1996 (7) Supreme Today, 432 has rejected the writ petition on the following grounds "It is clear from the above ruling of the Supreme Court that if the criminal proceedings are prolonged and bogged down, there is no reason why disciplinary proceedings should not be proceeded with and completed. Further the Supreme Court makes a distinction between criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings. It is observed that the objective in both the proceedings is altogether distinct and different. In the disciplinary proceedings, the question is whether the respondent is guilty of such conduct as would merit his removal from service or a lesser punishment as the case may be whereas in the criminal proceedings the question is whether the of fences registered against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act (and the Indian Penal code, in any) are established and, if established what sentence should be imposed upon him. In the instant case, as criminal proceedings are pending for a long time, there is no bar for completing disciplinary proceedings. In any event, the issue is covered by order of Srinivasan,J. in W.P. No. 9122 of 1992 dated 7. 1992 which has become final between the parties and the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is barred by principle of resjudicata." 3. We have been taken through the charge memo, issued to the petitioner/appellant which is produced at page 1 of the typed set of records and also the first information report recorded under section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code. We have been taken through the charge memo, issued to the petitioner/appellant which is produced at page 1 of the typed set of records and also the first information report recorded under section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It may be pointed out here that the criminal case apart from section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, is also based upon the violation of Section 8(1) read with 56 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, whereas the disciplinary proceedings are based on the conduct of the appellant, demanding and obtaining money from Sudalai Muthu, Selvi Bhuvaneswari for securing admission to medical college and also other conduct. Therefore, we are of the view that it is not possible to hold that both the proceedings are based upon the same set of facts and same conduct. As such, if the disciplinary proceeding is proceeded with no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner/appellant. When the conduct of the petitioner which is the subject matter of the disciplinary proceeding is not the one which is the subject matter of the criminal proceeding, learned single Judge is justified in refusing to grant relief on applying the principles enunciated in the aforesaid B.K.Meenas case, 1996 (7) Supreme Today, 432. In addition to that, the matter is very old and there is no justification to allow the disciplinary proceeding pending for such a long time, Hence, looked from any point of view, we see no ground to admit the appeal, it is, accordingly, rejected. The C.M.P. also stands rejected.