JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing order dated 22.04.2015, by which, the respondents initiated the departmental proceeding against the petitioner and for direction upon the respondents not to proceed with the departmental proceeding against the petitioner and also prayed that during pendency of the writ application, order dated 22.04.2015 be stayed. 2. The facts, as delineated in the writ application, in brief is that petitioner while working on the post of Special Grade Clerk/Bill Clerk in Munidih Coal Washery, BCCL Dhanbad, on the complaint made by Niranjan Mahto, in a trap case he was caught red handed while demanding and accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 500/-as a motive for preparing/processing arrears of pay consequent upon promotion of the complainant. Pursuant thereto, F.I.R. No. 8/C 10(A)/2014-D dated 08.09.2014 under Section 7 of the P.C Act was instituted against the petitioner and thereafter charge-sheet was submitted by the C.B.I on 07.11.2014 under Section 7, 13/2 read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act. Thereafter, vide order dated 22.04.2015, it was proposed to hold enquiry against the petitioner on the same set of charge and direction was given to the petitioner to submit reply in his defence within 15 days, to which, he replied. 3. Learned senior counsel for petitioner submitted that the complainant has a previous grudge and enmity, hence, a drama for trapping the petitioner was made and there is no question of demanding money as bribe for preparing arrear bill, as the same was already prepared by the BCCL Headquarter, which fact finds support from the deposition of witness-Tarkeshwar Singh. Since, the bills of 125 employees were to be prepared manually, so it consumed some time but the complainant wanted to get his bill separated, which the petitioner denied, resulting into cooking of a drama against the petitioner. Furthermore, in the deposition of In-Charge of that section, he deposed that there was no complaint against the petitioner except this. On the ground of parity, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the case of one A.K. Hazare, the disciplinary authority kept the proceeding in abeyance till the final outcome of criminal case. Furthermore, in the deposition of In-Charge of that section, he deposed that there was no complaint against the petitioner except this. On the ground of parity, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the case of one A.K. Hazare, the disciplinary authority kept the proceeding in abeyance till the final outcome of criminal case. Likewise, in the case of Keshav Singh Yadav and Arun Kumar Singh, direction has been issued vide order dated 17.06.2015 in W.P. (S) No. 587 of 2015 that the departmental proceeding may continue against the petitioner but in both cases no final order may be passed against them. It has further been submitted that since there is every chance of conclusion of departmental proceeding before disposal of criminal case and in that case the petitioner will be forced to disclose all his defence which will be prejudicial to the interest of criminal justice. Hence, demand of principle justice and fair play would be met if the respondents be restrained from proceeding further against the petitioner in the departmental proceeding as on the same set of chare criminal case is pending. 4. To substantiate his argument, learned senior counsel for the petitioner referred to the judgment rendered in the case of State Bank of India & Ors Vs. Neelam Nag & Another as reported in (2016) 9 SCC 491 in particular paragraph 14 and further in the case of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited vs. Girish V. and Ors as reported in 2014 (2) JCR 62 : (2014) 3 SCC 636 , in particular paragraphs 11, 14, 15 and 16. 5. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner has already been concluded, both the Management Witness and defense witness have already been examined by the parties and now enquiry officer is to submit enquiry report. It has further been submitted that disciplinary proceeding is distinct from the criminal proceeding, as the disciplinary proceeding is judged on the standard of proof of preponderance of probability. Therefore, enquiry can always proceed even in cases where criminal cases have been instituted. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon a judgment rendered in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors Vs. T. Srinivas as reported in 2005 (3) JCR 225 (Sc) : (2004) 7 SCC 442 . 6. Therefore, enquiry can always proceed even in cases where criminal cases have been instituted. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon a judgment rendered in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors Vs. T. Srinivas as reported in 2005 (3) JCR 225 (Sc) : (2004) 7 SCC 442 . 6. It is no more res integra that each case has to be seen in set of its own fact and there is no such straight jacket formula to decide such cases. View of this court gets fortified by the laws laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. M.G. Vittal Rao as reported in (2012) 1 SCC 442 . Furthermore, it is also well settled principle of law that standard of proof in both the proceeding are different and distinct as in the criminal case yardstick is proof beyond all reasonable doubts whereas in a departmental proceeding the yardstick is the preponderance of probability. 7. So far the case laws cited by learned senior counsel for the petitioner is concerned, there is no quarrel over the proposition laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court but that has been taken in different aspect and is not applicable in the case at hand. In the present facts and circumstances of the case, where the departmental proceeding has almost concluded and enquiry officer has to submit his report, this Court is not inclined to stay the further proceeding or quash order dated 22.04.2015, by which, the respondents initiated the departmental proceeding against the petitioner. 8. Resultantly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, it is made clear that this Court has not made any comment on the merit of the case, hence, dismissal of this writ application shall not come in way of the disciplinary authority for proceeding further or shall affect case of the petitioner in any way.