JUDGMENT Jaya Roy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the C.B.I. 2. The petitioner has filed this revision application for setting aside the order dated 14.12.2010 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I.-Cum-Additional Sessions Judge-I, Dhanbad in R.C. Case No. 5A/1999 (P) corresponding to Special Case No. 05 of 1999 whereby the Court below has rejected the application of the petitioner filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for discharging him from the offence under Sections 419/420/468/471/406/409/120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1988. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier the petitioner moved before this Court for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 14.09.2004 and also for quashing the entire criminal proceeding which was registered as W.P. (Cr.) No.406 of 2005. After hearing both the parties, the Hon'ble Court vide its order dated 16.05.2006 permitted the petitioner to withdraw the application and accordingly, the said application was dismissed as withdrawn. The order passed in the said W.P.(Cr.) No. 406 of 2005 read as under: “After some argument learned counsel for the petitioner prays to withdraw this application in order to raise all the points before the trial court itself at the stage of framing of charge. Prayer is allowed. Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn. If such an application is filed by the petitioner, the same shall be dealt with by the trial court in accordance with law and by a reasoned order.” 4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 227 of Cr. P. C. for his discharge but the Court below without considering the points raised by him and without considering the materials available on record which were in his favour, rejected the aforesaid application refusing to discharge the petitioner by his order dated 25.09.2006. Against the said order, the petitioner had filed the Cr. Rev. No. 1049 of 2006 in this Hon'ble Court. After hearing both the parties and as earlier the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. (Cr.) No. 406 of 2005 had directed that if any application filed by the petitioner under Section 227 Cr. Against the said order, the petitioner had filed the Cr. Rev. No. 1049 of 2006 in this Hon'ble Court. After hearing both the parties and as earlier the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. (Cr.) No. 406 of 2005 had directed that if any application filed by the petitioner under Section 227 Cr. P. C., the same shall be dealt with by the trial Court in accordance with law and by passing a reasoned order but the Court below did not consider the points raised by the petitioner or the materials available on record. Therefore, the said order was set aside vide order dated 05.03.2009 by this Court and the case was remanded to the trial Court for considering the petitioner's case afresh and to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. After considering the petitioner's petition afresh, the trial Court has rejected the petitioner's petition for discharge on 14.12.2010 against which the petitioner has filed the instant revision application (i.e. Cr. Revision No. 68 of 2011). 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he is not named in the F.I.R and he was not B.D.O of Udhwa Block after constituting the Udhawa Block from Rajmahal Block. Radhey Shyam Sah took over as B.D.O. of Udhawa Block from 17.10.95 under whom the scheme No.8/9394 was being done and the scheme was completed under Rahadey Shyam Sah, the then B.D.O. at the relevant time and the bills were finalised in terms of the same and the final payment was made by him accordingly but he has not been made accused in the instant case. It is also submitted that in the financial year of 19992000, there was a great natural devastation in that Area and all the constructed buildings of the Governments as well as the villager's homes were swept away by the floods of the Ganges and major part of the village lands devoured by the Ganges and as such the area of 3 kilometers disappeared in the Ganges. 6. Counsel of the petitioner has further contended that the petitioner was put to departmental proceeding on the same charges upon which the first information was lodged in the present case. In the said departmental proceeding, the petitioner have been exonerated from the same charges. 6. Counsel of the petitioner has further contended that the petitioner was put to departmental proceeding on the same charges upon which the first information was lodged in the present case. In the said departmental proceeding, the petitioner have been exonerated from the same charges. Therefore, the entire prosecution case including the order taking cognizance ought to be quashed against the petitioner and the Court below is wholly erred in rejecting the petitioner's application filed under Section 227 of the Cr. P. C. to support his contention, the counsel of the petitioner has cited the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in case of P.S. Rajya Versus State of Bihar reported in (1996) 9 S.C.C.1 in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held: “17. At the outset we may point out that the learned counsel for the respondent could not but accept the position that the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in a criminal case is far higher than the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in the departmental proceedings. He also accepted that in the present case, the charge in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal proceedings is one and the same. He did not dispute the findings rendered in the departmental proceedings and the ultimate result of it. On these premises, if we proceed further then there is no difficulty in accepting the case of the appellant. For if the charge which is identical could not be established in a departmental proceedings and in view of the admitted discrepancies in the reports submitted by the valuers one wonders what is there further to proceed against the appellant in criminal proceedings. 7. The counsel of the petitioner has further submitted that on the basis of the aforesaid decision another Bench of this Court has also quashed the entire criminal proceeding of another case vide order dated 3rd May 2012 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 749 of 2011. 8. Mr. Khan, counsel appearing for the C.B.I., has pointed out that after investigation Police has submitted charge sheet and sufficient materials have come in the investigation regarding involvement of the petitioner in this case. Misc. No. 749 of 2011. 8. Mr. Khan, counsel appearing for the C.B.I., has pointed out that after investigation Police has submitted charge sheet and sufficient materials have come in the investigation regarding involvement of the petitioner in this case. It is also submitted that the present petitioner namely Shyam Kishore Prasad was posted as B.D.O. at the relevant period in Rajmohal/Udhawa Block and he was incharge of proper execution of work and proper maintenance of Master Rolls prepared by the agent of Sunischit Rojgar Yojna Scheme under execution in the Rajmahal/Udhawa Block. It has also come that he has not signed all the Master Rolls but made the payment against the running account bills in the absence of the Master Rolls. 9. It is also submitted that the investigation has disclosed that in the Scheme No. 8/9394 as per measurement book relating to that deskslab of size 21'x14' 8”x1' 2” i.e. 10.24 Cubic Metre work worth Rs.10,349.57 has been shown constructed in the Measurement Book while the technical committee after physical inspection of the site during the course of investigation, reported that they had physically found the deskslab of size 21' x 12'6” x 1'O” i.e. 7.44 Cubit Metre work worth Rs.7520/. But Permanand Yadav, the Junior Engineer has shown recorded in the measurement book more than the actual deskslab constructed and without physical verification of the site, the payment was made under the orders of the present petitioner Shyam Kishore Prasad the then BDO due to which department was put to wrongful loss of huge amount. 10. Mr. Khan has further contended that a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) Versus Ajay Kumar Tyagi reported in (2012) 9 S.C.C. 685 after considering the case of P.S. Rajya Vs. State of Bihar (which is cited by the petitioner in this case) has held: “23. The decision of this Court in CBI v. V.K. Bhutiani, also throws light on the question involved. In the said case, the accused against whom the criminal proceeding and the departmental proceeding were going on, was exonerated in the departmental proceeding by the Central Vigilance Commission. The accused challenged his prosecution before the High Court relying on the decision of this Court in P.S. Rajya and the High Court quashed the prosecution. In the said case, the accused against whom the criminal proceeding and the departmental proceeding were going on, was exonerated in the departmental proceeding by the Central Vigilance Commission. The accused challenged his prosecution before the High Court relying on the decision of this Court in P.S. Rajya and the High Court quashed the prosecution. On a challege by the Central Bureau of Investigation, the decision was reversed and after relying on the decision in M. Krishna Mohan, this Court came to the conclusion that the quashing of the prosecution was illegal and while doing so observed as follows: (V.K. Bhutiani case, SCC p. 678, para6) “6..... In our opinion, the reliance of the High Court on the ruling of P.S. Rajya was totally uncalled for as the factual situation in that case was entirely different than the one prevalent there in this case.” 24. Therefore, in our opinion, the High Court quashed the prosecution on total misreading of the judgment in P.S. Rajya case, In fact, there are precedents, to which we have referred to above, that speak eloquently a contrary view i.e. exoneration in departmental proceeding ipso facto would not lead to exoneration or acquittal in a criminal case. On principle also, this view commends us,. It is well settled that the standard of proof in a department proceeding is lower than that of criminal prosecution. It is equally well settled that the departmental proceeding or for that matter criminal cases have to be decided only on the basis of evidence adduced therein. Truthfulness of the evidence in the criminal case can be judged only after the evidence is adduced therein and the criminal case can not be rejected on the basis of the evidence in the departmental proceeding or the report of the inquiry officer based on those evidence. 11. Considering the submissions made by both the parties and the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State (NCT of Delhi ) Versus Ajay Kumar Tyagi (Supra), in my opinion the decision cited by the counsel of the petitioner of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Case of P.S. Rajya Vs. State of Bihar is not at all applicable in the present case and the entire criminal case against the petitioner cannot be quashed on the ground that the petitioner has been exonerated in the departmental proceeding from the same charge. State of Bihar is not at all applicable in the present case and the entire criminal case against the petitioner cannot be quashed on the ground that the petitioner has been exonerated in the departmental proceeding from the same charge. Furthermore, sufficient materials have come against the petitioner in the investigation and the trial court has thoroughly discussed the same in the impugned order, I do not find any merit in this revision application. Accordingly the criminal revision application is dismissed. Application dismissed.