Judgment :- This application is to review the Order passed in W.P. No.24875 of 2003 on 05.8.2004. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the authorities have predetermined the issue since the show cause notice reveals as if conclusion has already been arrived at. As per Rule, unless the disciplinary authority agrees with the finding of the Enquiry Officer, there is no jurisdiction for him to issue second show cause notice. Therefore, no final conclusion could be arrived at and such a conclusion is only provisional. Only under the said circumstances, the second show cause notice has been issued. The writ petition was filed against the second show cause notice in which it was found that the word 'punishment imposed' has been typed instead of 'punishment proposed'. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed holding that it is not maintainable as it is premature. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the authority, who has issued show cause notice, is not competent to terminate him from service. Since it is only show cause notice, there is no bar for issuing the show cause notice by the authority, who issued the same. Only the order imposing the punishment of dismissal or termination from service shall be issued by the appointing authority. 3. Thirdly, the learned counsel submitted that a criminal case is also pending for the same charge. Therefore, it is contended that unless the criminal case is disposed of, departmental enquiry cannot be proceeded. In support of such contention, he relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in P.J.SUNDERRAJAN AND ANOTER vs. UNIT TRUST OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ( 1993 (1) LLJ 168 ). 4. In DEPOT MANAGER, A.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs. MOHD.YOUSUF MIYA AND OTHERS ( (1997) 2 SCC 699 ), Their Lordships held as follows: "The purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution are two different and distinct aspects. The criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of a duty, the offender owes to the society or for breach of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. So crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. So crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. It would, therefore, be expedient that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible". 5. In STATE OF RAJASTHAN vs. B.K.MEENA AND OTHERS (1997 (1) LLJ 136), the Supreme Court held thus: "It is thus clear in law there is no bar to, or prohibition against, initiating simultaneous criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings. Indeed not only the said two proceedings, but if found necessary, even a civil suit can also proceed simultaneously." 6. The argument of the learned counsel for the review applicant is not acceptable in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court cited supra wherein it has been held that even if the criminal case is pending, departmental enquiry can go on. Therefore, there is no prohibition for proceeding with the departmental enquiry even though criminal case is pending. 7. The scope of review is very limited and the grounds raised by the applicant will not fall within the scope of review. There is no error apparent in the Order nor there is any ambiguity in the order passed in the writ petition. The review application is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. Consequently, Review W.P.M.P. No.31563 of 2004 is closed.