Order This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed for quashing the F.I.R. lodged against the petitioner and others registered as Vigilance P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007 corresponding to Special Case No. 17 of 2007 under Sections 409/420/467/468/471/477 A/120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 13(2) & 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act and also for quashing the entire investigation and proceedings initiated by the police against him on the basis of the said F.I.R pending before the Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi. 2. On 3.10.2007 a written report was lodged by the S.P., Vigilance, Ranchi before the Officer-in-charge, Vigilance Department, Ranchi stating irregularities committed in the Employment Guaranteed Scheme in the Department of Rural Engineer Organization of the Government of Jharkhand in which it was alleged that the Government money has been misutilised. The irregularities were enquired. The irregularities committed was with regard to the construction/repair of roads and digging and/or construction of ponds. After measurement, it was found that the work was not done up-to the mark. It was also alleged that wrong budget was prepared and on the basis of said wrong budget the Government sanctioned a sum of Rs.1,04,81,900/- (One crore four lac eighty one thousand nine hundred) wherein a sum of, Rs. 54,98,892/- (Fifty four lac ninety eight thousand eight hundred ninety two) was embezzled. On the basis of said report F.I.R has been registered against the petitioner and two other Engineers of the Department. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and all the allegations levelled against him are false and baseless. It is also submitted that the allegation levelled against the petitioner in the F.I.R. is only on the basis of the report of two persons namely Shri Amarendra Kumar, Executive Magistrate and Shri B.K. Singh, Executive Engineer, R.E.O. It is submitted that those persons have neither physically visited the site nor verified the allegation but submitted the report which is the basis of the entire prosecution. He has further submitted that the departmental proceeding' was also initiated against the petitioner on the same charge as in the criminal case. The petitioner was issued a show-cause notice. A full-fledged departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. After conclusion of the proceeding, the petitioner was exonerated from the departmental proceeding vide order dated 5.7.2006. He has further submitted that the departmental proceeding' was also initiated against the petitioner on the same charge as in the criminal case. The petitioner was issued a show-cause notice. A full-fledged departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. After conclusion of the proceeding, the petitioner was exonerated from the departmental proceeding vide order dated 5.7.2006. It is also contended that the departmental proceeding was dropped by the department concerned, after having come to a conclusion that the enquiry team, who submitted the initial report stating about the defalcation of Rs. 54,98,892/- (Fifty four lac ninety eight thousand eight hundred ninety two), is not correct as the work has not been measured in a detailed manner. It was submitted that the present F.I.R. which is the basis of the report for prosecution of the petitioner and others, has got no legs to stand and is fit to be set aside. 4. On the other hand learned counsel for the Vigilance Mr. Shekhar Sinha submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and from the allegation against the petitioner it is apparent that it is a case of forgery. It is also submitted that at present investigation is going on and therefore this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is fit to be dismissed. In this context learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court reported in (2007)XIV SCC 497 (Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Laxmi Dhaul) in which the Apex Court has held that the High Court was not justified in examining the matter and quashing the police investigation which was pending against the respondent. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in which the investigation is going on, cannot be quashed at this stage. 5. In my opinion the approach and the objective in the criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceeding is altogether distinct and different. In the disciplinary proceeding, the question is whether delinquent is guilty of such conduct as would result in his removal from service or a lesser punishment, as the case may be, whereas in the criminal proceedings the question is whether the offences registered against the accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act or I.P.C. if any, are established or not and if established, what sentence should be imposed upon him. The standard of proof, the mode of enquiry and the rules governing the enquiry and the trial in both the cases are entirely distinct and different. 6. From the contents of the F.I.R., I find that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and there are sufficient materials/allegations against him regarding his involvement in this offence. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no reason to quash the F.I.R. and the entire criminal proceeding at this stage. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.