ORDER This writ petition (criminal) has been filed with a prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including F.I.R arising out of Jamtara P.S. Case No. 337 of 2013 dated 27.9.2013, registered u/s 420/ 409/ 467/ 468/ 471 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 971 of 2013, then pending in the Court of learned CJM, Jamtara. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that the petitioner was posted as accounts clerk in Rural Engineering Organization, Jamtara from 22.3.1987 to 17.8.1990. During that tenure, he had withdrawn Rs. 1,04,393/-on account of salary and other allowances. On departmental inquiry, it was detected that Last Pay certificate (LPC), produced by the petitioner, was found fake and therefore, direction to lodge F.I.R. was given and hence F.I.R. was lodged by Assistant Engineer, Work Sub Division, Kundahit. 3. It is submitted that on the same set of allegation, departmental proceeding was initiated vide Annexure-2 in which he has been exonerated from the charges and the LPC available in the office was found to be correct. Since the petitioner has been exonerated in the departmental proceeding, criminal prosecution arising out of same is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel has also relied on the judgment reported in (1996) 9 SCC 1 (P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar). 4. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the State has opposed the argument and submitted that again a eight member committee was constituted and para-3 of the said report annexed with the F.I.R. clearly indicates that there was no reference of memo number in the dispatch register with regard to 2. issuance of that LPC and the L.P.C. produced is also not having memo number and it is forged one. 5. I have gone through the F.I.R. and copy of alleged LPC annexed at Page 29-30 of this writ petition. It is apparent that no memo number is appearing in the said LPC. It is also apparent that the Executive Engineer, who had alleged to have issued that LPC, has not been examined and he has not admitted issuance of such LPC in favour of present petitioner. I am also of the firm view that exoneration of any person from departmental proceeding is not a ground to quash the criminal prosecution launched against him. I am also of the firm view that exoneration of any person from departmental proceeding is not a ground to quash the criminal prosecution launched against him. The judgment relied by the petitioner has well been discussed by their Lordships in (2012) 9 SCC 685 [ State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ajay Kumar Tyagi]. Their Lordships in Paragraph-24 by referring the said case of P.S. Rajya, held as follows:- "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 departmental proceeding is lower than that of criminal proceeding. 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." 6. In the aforesaid circumstances and also in view of the observation made in the case of NCT of Delhi (Supra), I do not find any merit in this writ petition, accordingly, the same stands dismissed. All interim orders passed earlier, giving protection to the petitioner, stands vacated and the trial court shall be at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law. If the investigation is not completed, the same shall be completed at the earliest.