Judgment 1. This letters patent appeal has been filed against the order of 7 July 2003 on the petitioners writ petition being CWJC No. 5122 of 2003 : Rasheed Alam V/s. The State Bank of India & Ors. The learned Judge has declined to grant any relief by not interfering with the departmental proceeding. 2. The contention on behalf of the petitioner-appellant is that the learned judge has erred in not considering that between the simultaneous proceedings, that is to say, a departmental proceeding and a criminal trial, the departmental proceeding ought to be stayed. The contention is that two parallel proceedings are in motion and it is in the fitness of things that the departmental proceeding ought to remain in abeyance till the criminal trial is determined. The petitioner-appellant has also relied on a decision of the Supreme Court In Re. Kusheshwar Dubey V/s. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and others, AIR 1988 S.C. 2118 . 3. In so far as the decision of the Supreme Court is concerned, there is no similarity with the present case and the one which was before the Supreme Court. The case before the Supreme Court was on an aspect where an employee had been charged for having committed a misdemeanor by having assaulted a Supervising Officer. Thus, there was a criminal prosecution. In the present case far from being similar there is nakedness that the petitioner-appellant had been booked by the Central Bureau of Investigation for accepting bribe in distributing for public funds from the Prime Minister RojgarYojana. The petitioner faces prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 4. The charge against the petitioner-appellant is that he was misapplying the public funds and delivering it to wrong persons and that also after taking bribe. 5. In so far as the Supreme Courts case is concerned, the Supreme Court has itself said that there can be no straight-jacket formula as judicial opinion. On such cases the Supreme Court, in fact, has observed: "We do not propose to hazard such a step as that would create greater hardship and individual situations may not be available to be met and thereby injustice is likely to ensue". 6. There is a difference between the person facing a criminal prosecution for an assault and a person facing a charge of bribery and corruption. We do not propose to interfere in this matter. 7. 6. There is a difference between the person facing a criminal prosecution for an assault and a person facing a charge of bribery and corruption. We do not propose to interfere in this matter. 7. There is no error in the order of the learned Judge. 8. Dismissed.