D. P. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) HEARD counsel for the petitioner. This petition is directed against the orders dated November 11, 2005 and January 17, 2006. By the former order, the departmental proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner and, by the latter order, his request for stay of proceedings has been rejected. ( 2 ) AT the relevant time the petitioner was head Cashier of the State Bank of Patiala at ghaziabad and was also joint custodian of the cash chest, Bins etc. , wherein the cash of the reserve Bank of India is kept. On May 3, 2005 the Currency Verification Officer was deputed for verifying the cash held in the chest as a part of structured cash verification exercise. He found a shortage of Rs. 2,11,09,500/- in the cash chest. A First Information Report was lodged against the petitioner and another joint custodian and a departmental enquiry was initiated where charges were framed on october 13, 2005. After investigation in the criminal case, a charge sheet under Sections 120-B, 409 I P. C. read with Section 13 (2), 13 (1) (c) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act was submitted to the Court with the allegation that the petitioner dishonestly misappropriated and utilised for his own use the aforesaid cash of the Reserve Bank of India by making investments and speculation in stock market in his own name or in the name of his family members or fictitious persons from June, 2003 onwards through City Capital Services, meerut. ( 3 ) THE petitioner approached this Court on an earlier occasion claiming that both the charges were the same and so was the evidence and therefore the domestic enquiry should be stayed. A learned single Judge of this Court vide his order dated December 16, 2005 remitted the matter to the Disciplinary authority stating that if the charges were same and the evidence was same, the authority may consider the stay of departmental enquiry. By the second impugned order, the claim has been rejected by the Disciplinary Authority which is now also under challenge. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has again repeated the same argument that since the charges before the Criminal Court and disciplinary Authority were same, the disciplinary enquiry should he stayed. The apex Court in the case of Capt. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has again repeated the same argument that since the charges before the Criminal Court and disciplinary Authority were same, the disciplinary enquiry should he stayed. The apex Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another, AIR 1999 SC 1416 : 1999 (3) SCC 679 : 1999-I-LLJ-1094 and State Bank of India and others v. R. B. Sharma, 2004-III-LLJ-528 (SC) has held that the departmental proceedings and the criminal case can go on simultaneously except where the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on the same set of facts and evidence in both the proceedings are common. A perusal of the departmental charge sheet, which is annexed with the petition, shows that the charge levelled against the petitioner in the domestic enquiry is that he failed to perform his duties effectively resulting in shortage of cash inasmuch as he did not follow the prescribed procedure for maintaining the cash chest. Other charge relates to non-filing and noting down the details of the currency notes held in various bins in separate register for tallying with the currency chest register. As already observed above, charge before Criminal Court is dishonestly misappropriating the money of the bank and using it to his own benefit by making investments and speculations in stock market. Both the charges are entirely different and the evidence to prove the two charges would obviously be different. ( 5 ) THE petitioner has then sought parity on the basis of an interim order passed in Writ petition No. 36479 of 2005 Prafulla Kumar v. S. T. Mukkawar, Inquiring Authority and others, dated May 4, 2005. No doubt, a division Bench of this Court has stayed departmental proceedings due to pendecy of the criminal case but the petitioner has neither annexed copies of the charge sheet of the criminal case nor of the departmental enquiry to demonstrate as to whether both the charges were identical. Thus, this contention of the petitioner can also not be accepted. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons given herein above, I do not find that this is a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected. .