JUDGMENT In spite of opportunity being given for filing counter affidavit, no counter affidavit has been filed. Under the circumstances, the matter was heard on its merit. 2. This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings of Khunti P.S. Case No. 60/2000 (G.R. No. 241/2000), including the order dated 18/11/2008, whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, has been taken against the petitioner. 3. The case of the prosecution, as it appears from the first information report, is that when the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, came to know that several Engineers including this petitioner, who at the relevant point of time, was posted as Junior Engineer, who had been entrusted with the works of construction/repairing of the road under Rural Engineering Organization, Works Division, Ranchi, had indulged themselves in several kinds of irregularities, constituted a Committee. The Committee having inspected the works done by this petitioner and others, came to the finding that the Engineers, without getting the work completed, got the entire amount withdrawn and, thereby, they have misappropriated the said amount. 4. On the basis of the said enquiry report, Khunti P.S. Case No. 60/2000, was registered under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, against 13 persons including this petitioner. The matter was taken up for investigation. However, during investigation no culpability was found against this petitioner as well as other Engineers and, therefore, final form was submitted, whereby this petitioner and other persons were never sent up for trial but the Court, on the basis of the materials available in the case diary, took cognizance of the offence as stated above against the petitioner vide order dated 18/11/2008. That order is under challenge. 5. Mr. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that after the criminal case was instituted against this petitioner and others, they were put to Departmental Proceeding on the same charges upon which first information report was lodged but the Department failed to establish charges against this petitioner and, thereby, enquiry report was submitted exonerating the petitioner but the Disciplinary Authority did not find the enquiry report to be satisfactory and, hence, passed an order for holding a fresh enquiry. Thereafter, another enquiry officer conducted Departmental Proceeding. Thereafter, another enquiry officer conducted Departmental Proceeding. He too did not find the petitioner guilty for the charges and, thereby, submitted enquiry report exonerating the petitioner from the charges. That report was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and, thereby, the proceeding was dropped. Thus, it was submitted that when the petitioner has been exonerated in the Departmental Proceeding on the same charge, the entire prosecution case including the order taking cognizance warrants to be quashed in view of the decision rendered in a case of “P.S. Rajya versus State of Bihar [ (1996) 9 SCC 1 ].” 6. Learned counsel further submits that in similar situation, the case of other Engineers has been quashed by this Court in Cr. M.P. No. 749/2011. 7. There has been no dispute that the petitioner on being put to Departmental Proceeding on the same charges on which first information report has been lodged, has been exonerated and, thereby, the entire criminal proceeding warrants to be set aside, in view of the decision rendered in a case, referred to above, wherein it has been held as follows: “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. In the instant case the charge in the departmental proceedings and and in the criminal proceedings in one and the same. 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.” 8. Under the circumstances, entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 18/11/2008, under which cognizance of the offence was taken against the petitioner, is hereby set aside. 9. In the result, this application stands allowed.