ORDER By this criminal misc. petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 25-11-2004 whereby cognizance was taken against the petitioner for offence under Sections 420 or 120B read with 420 IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. It is a case where FIR was registered on 29-7-2002 stating that construction work of one hostel block, dining hall including internal services in RTTC complex Phase-I, VKI Area, Jaipur and construction of 5 Nos. type-II, 20 Nos. type-III and 2 Nos. type-V telecom staff quarters were to be undertaken by M/s. Anil Construction Company, Jaipur and M/s. Aries Constructions Company, New Delhi. It was found that accused petitioner committed a criminal conspiracy with Anil Construction Company with common object to extend undue pecuniary gain thus he had committed offence. The allegations further exist in regard to constructions of staff quarters including internal services in RTTC complex phase-I. The investigation was conducted and for filing charge sheet, prosecution sanction was given by the Department. On submission of charge sheet, cognizance was taken by the Court below and is challenged by this petition. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in the instant case, apart from lodging of criminal case, disciplinary enquiry was also conducted by the department. In the disciplinary proceedings, petitioner was exonerated having consequence on the criminal case. 4. Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of PS Rajya v. State of Bihar, reported as (1996) 9 SCC 1 , it is submitted that the case in hand is covered by the aforesaid. It was held that if the charges are not proved in the departmental enquiry then there remains nothing against the petitioner in criminal proceedings. In view of above and looking to exoneration of the petitioner in the departmental enquiry, criminal proceedings vitiate thus order taking cognizance deserves to be set aside. 5. The second argument of learned counsel for petitioner is regarding validity of the prosecution sanction, which, according to the petitioner, has been granted without application of mind. The prosecution sanction has to be after due application of mind and not in a mechanical manner. Perusal of the order against the petitioner does not show application of mind as the material evidence has not been discussed. The prosecution sanction has to be after due application of mind and not in a mechanical manner. Perusal of the order against the petitioner does not show application of mind as the material evidence has not been discussed. In the light of the aforesaid, even the order granting prosecution sanction becomes illegal so as further proceedings. 6. It is lastly urged that material collected during course of investigation are not such which can connect petitioner with offence alleged against him. In view of above also, order of cognizance deserves to be set aside. 7. The charge-sheet in the case was filed in the year 2004 and even after expiry of seven years, charges have not been framed violating fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 8. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 9. It is case where cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offence under sections 420 or 120B read with 420, IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The order of cognizance has been challenged on manifold grounds which are dealt with as under –– 10. The first argument of learned counsel for petitioner is in reference to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of P. S. Rajya (supra), wherein, it was held that if a person is exonerated in the departmental enquiry, no purpose remains to allow criminal proceedings against him. The judgment in the case of P. S. Rajya (supra) was considered by the Apex Court in the subsequent judgment in the case of State of NCT of Delhi v. Ajay Kumar Tyagi reported as (2012) 9 SCC 685 : (2012 AIR SCW 4815). The Hon'ble Apex Court held that judgment in the case of PS Rajya (supra) is applicable to that case only. The issue was dealt with in detail referring to earlier judgments. In para 22 onwards issue has been dealt with and are quoted hereunder for ready reference –– "22. This point also fell for consideration before this Court in the case of Supdt. The issue was dealt with in detail referring to earlier judgments. In para 22 onwards issue has been dealt with and are quoted hereunder for ready reference –– "22. This point also fell for consideration before this Court in the case of Supdt. of Police (CBI) v. Deepak Chowdhary ( AIR 1996 SC 186 ), where quashing was sought for on two grounds and one of the grounds urged was that the accused having been exonerated of the charge in the departmental proceeding, the prosecution is fit to be quashed. The said submission did not find favour with this Court and it rejected the same in the following words : (SCC p. 227, para 6) "6. The second ground of departmental exoneration by the disciplinary authority is also not relevant. What is necessary and material is whether the facts collected during investigation would constitute the offence for which the sanction has been sought for." 23. Decision of this Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. V. K. Bhutiani, (2009) 10 SCC 674 : (AIR 2011 SC (Cri) 2065), 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 the case of P.S. Rajya and the High Court quashed the prosecution. On a challenge by the Central Bureau of Investigation, the decision was reversed and after relying on the decision in the case of 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, para 6) "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 here in this case." 24. Therefore, in our opinion, the High Court quashed the prosecution on total misreading of the judgment in the case of P.S. Rajya. 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. Therefore, in our opinion, the High Court quashed the prosecution on total misreading of the judgment in the case of P.S. Rajya. 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 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 cannot be rejected on the basis of the evidence in the departmental proceeding or the report of the Inquiry Officer based on those evidence. 25. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the exoneration in the departmental proceeding ipso facto would not result into the quashing of the criminal prosecution. We hasten to add, however, that if the prosecution against an accused is solely based on a finding in a proceeding and that finding is set aside by the superior authority in the hierarchy, the very foundation goes and the prosecution may be quashed. But that principle will not apply in the case of the departmental proceeding as the criminal trial and the departmental proceeding are held by two different entities. Further they are not in the same hierarchy. 26. For the reasons stated above, the order of the High Court is unsustainable, both on facts and law. Accused shall appear before the trial Court within four weeks from today. As the criminal proceeding is pending since long, the learned Judge in seisin of the trial shall make endeavour to dispose off the same expeditiously and avoid unnecessary and uncalled for adjournments. 27. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the order of the High Court is set aside with the direction aforesaid.–– 11. Perusal of the paras quoted above shows extensive discussion in reference to the judgment in the case of P. S. Rajya (supra). Relevant paras of the case of P. S. Rajya were quoted to show peculiar facts obtaining therein. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the order of the High Court is set aside with the direction aforesaid.–– 11. Perusal of the paras quoted above shows extensive discussion in reference to the judgment in the case of P. S. Rajya (supra). Relevant paras of the case of P. S. Rajya were quoted to show peculiar facts obtaining therein. The Apex Court considered earlier judgment in the case of State v. M. Krishna Mohan reported as (2007) 14 SCC 667 : ( AIR 2008 SC 368 ), Supdt. of Police (CBI) v. Deepak, Chowdhary reported as (1995) 6 SCC 225 : ( AIR 1996 SC 186 ) and Central Bureau of Investigation v. V. K. Bhutiani reported in (2009) 10 SCC 674 : (AIR 2011 SC (Cri) 2065) and many other judgments. It was held that reliance was erroneously placed by the High Court on judgment in the case of P. S. Rajya (supra). It was taken to be a total misreading of judgment. Taking into consideration detailed judgment in the case referred to above holding that mere exoneration in the departmental enquiry cannot automatically result in dropping criminal proceedings, I am unable to accept first argument raised by learned counsel for petitioner. 12. In the departmental enquiry parameters of evidence are different than in the criminal case. In view of above also argument of learned counsel for petitioner cannot be accepted. 13. Learned counsel for petitioner further referred the judgment of this Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Bangad v. State rendered in SB Cr. Revision Petition No. 1575/2011 of 29-11-2011, wherein, in reference of the same argument, charges framed against the accused petitioner were set aside. It is also stated that this Court is bound by the judgment rendered by the co-ordinate Bench in the light of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Soni v. State of Rajasthan, reported as 1991 (1) RLR 28. 14. It is also stated that this Court is bound by the judgment rendered by the co-ordinate Bench in the light of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Soni v. State of Rajasthan, reported as 1991 (1) RLR 28. 14. I find that the co-ordinate Bench considered the issue in reference of the judgment in the case of PS Rajya (supra) and Radhey Shyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal, reported as (2011) 3 SCC 581 : (2011 AIR SCW 1479), however, subsequent judgment of the Apex Court was not brought to the notice of the co-ordinate Bench, wherein the issue was considered at length after referring to the judgments aforesaid and judgment of three Judge Bench. In view of above and taking note of the subsequent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, what will prevail is not the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench but of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of NCT of Delhi v. Ajay Kumar Tyagi (2012 AIR SCW 4815) (supra). Accordingly, I am unable to apply judgment of co-ordinate Bench in the case of Dinesh Kumar Bangad (supra). The issue is not required to be referred to the Larger Bench as the judgment of the Apex Court already exists on the issue which will prevail on the judgment of the High Court. Reference to the Large Bench is required only when contradictory view exists and no judgment of the Apex Court covers the issue. The first argument is accordingly not accepted in the light of the aforesaid also. 15. The issue now comes as to whether prosecution sanction has been granted with the application of mind or not? 16. Perusal of the sanction order at Annexure-3 onwards indicates detailed reason for grant of prosecution sanction. Every aspect has been considered therein thus it cannot be said to be an order without application of mind. The prosecution sanction has been given after considering all the material and evidence. Hence, second argument raised by learned counsel for petitioner in regard to prosecution sanction cannot be accepted. 17. The argument that no evidence exist to connect the petitioner with the crime is again without basis. Reasons and material have been disclosed to connect the petitioner with the crime, thereby ground urged by the learned counsel for petitioner in that regard cannot be accepted. 18. 17. The argument that no evidence exist to connect the petitioner with the crime is again without basis. Reasons and material have been disclosed to connect the petitioner with the crime, thereby ground urged by the learned counsel for petitioner in that regard cannot be accepted. 18. Lastly it was argued that there is delay in framing of charges. I find that charges have already been framed against the petitioner by a detail order and has been placed on record by none else but by the petitioner himself. Looking to the facts aforesaid, even challenge to the order of cognizance no more remains alive, hence, for the reasons given above, I do not find no merit in the criminal misc. petition to challenge the order taking cognizance. It is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.