JUDGMENT : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. I.A. No. 6914 of 2017 1. This application has been filed for amendment in the writ petition for challenging show-cause notice dated 06.07.2017. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of the writ petition the petitioner superannuated from service on 31.12.2016 and thereafter, the departmental proceeding has been converted into under Rule 43-B of Jharkhand Pension Rules. 3. At the outset, it needs to be recorded that letter dated 06.07.2017 is not in the nature of a show-cause notice. In terms of the extant rules, the delinquent employee has been granted an opportunity to respond to the charges as contained in Prapatra-Ka. Moreover, a challenge to a show-cause notice is generally not entertained by the writ Court unless, it is found without jurisdiction or wholly illegal. On continuance of the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner in which Prapatra-Ka was served upon him on 05.08.2013, direction contained in letter dated 06.07.2017 is the next step which was required to be taken by the department. Letter dated 06.07.2017 is neither without jurisdiction nor illegal. The writ petition was initially filed for stay of the departmental proceeding till pendency of the criminal case vide RC 09(A)/2010-R. Now, in this writ petition the petitioner seeks to challenge letter dated 06.07.2017. Through this amendment application the petitioner has tried to raise issues as contained in paragraph no. 12 of this application which are entirely different from the issues raised in the writ petition. 4. In the above facts, I.A. No. 6914 of 2017 is dismissed. W.P.(S) No. 4106 of 2014 5. Seeking stay of departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner, the present writ petition has been filed. 6. The petitioner claims that he was posted as Junior Engineer in Road Construction Department at Jamtara at the relevant time. An agreement was executed between M/s. Maa Usha Consortium, Jamtara and the Executive Engineer for contract value of Rs. 74,80,480/-. On an allegation of irregularities committed in execution of works in Road Costruction Department, Government of Jharkhand, W.P.(PIL) No. 803 of 2009 was filed in which pursuant to directions issued by this Court First Information Report being RC 09(A)/2010-R was registered on 18.03.2010 for offences under sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 and for offences under section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In the criminal case charge-sheet was submitted on 30.08.2011. Petitioner has been made an accused in the criminal case. The petitioner claims that in relation to the same occurrence, vide order dated 05.08.2013 a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by serving charge-memo in Prapatra-Ka upon him. In the meantime, the petitioner superannuated from service on 31.12.2016 and the departmental proceeding which was initiated against him vide office order dated 05.08.2013 was converted into under Rule 43B of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a proceeding under Rule 43B cannot be initiated in respect to an incident which occurred four years prior to initiation of the proceeding under section 43B. Another ground raised by the petitioner is that charges in the departmental proceeding are identical to the allegations against the petitioner in the criminal case. 7. On initiation of proceeding under Rule 43B of Jharkhand Pension Rules, suffice would be to indicate that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner and others on 18.03.2010, pursuant to direction of this Court in W.P.(PIL) No. 803 of 2009. The departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on 05.08.2013. Evidently, knowledge of the irregularities committed in the department can be imputed when a First Information Report was lodged on 18.03.2010. The departmental proceeding was initiated within four years' of registration of the criminal case. Moreover, it is not a case of initiation of a fresh proceeding under Rule 43B rather, the pending departmental enquiry was converted into under Rule 43B of Jharkhand Pension Rules. These issues, however, are not germane for deciding the relief sought by the petitioner in the present proceeding. Generally, a departmental proceeding can be stayed in view of pendency of a criminal case on the ground that the issues involved before the criminal court and the departmental proceeding are so inter-linked that a finding recorded in one proceeding may affect the other proceeding, provided the witnesses and other evidences are same and similar. It needs to be recorded that in the departmental proceeding against the petitioner the department intends to rely on only four documents whereas, in the criminal case Central Bureau of Investigation has referred to 35 documents for supporting criminal charge against the petitioner and other co-accused persons. It needs to be recorded that in the departmental proceeding against the petitioner the department intends to rely on only four documents whereas, in the criminal case Central Bureau of Investigation has referred to 35 documents for supporting criminal charge against the petitioner and other co-accused persons. There are 34 cited-witnesses in the charge-sheet in RC 09(A)/2010-R whereas, the department has yet to disclose the number of witnesses it intends to examine in support of the charges framed against the petitioner in the departmental proceeding. It cannot be disputed that a departmental proceeding and a criminal trial can proceed simultaneously and outcome of one may not always affect the outcome of the other case. 9. In the above facts, finding no merit in the writ petition, it is dismissed.