JUDGMENT S. N. Pathak, J. - The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the departmental proceeding, arising out of the Charge sheet issued vide letter under Ref. No. PO/Karma/Disc.Act/16/399 dated 11.06.2016 under the signature of the Project Officer, Karma. Further prayer has been made for quashing the notice of enquiry under Ref. No. PO/Pindra/Disc.Action/2017/584 dated 28.07.2017 issued by the Senior Manager (Personnel)/ Enquiry Officer, Pindra Colliery, Central Coalfields Limited, whereby and whereunder, Enquiry Officer has been appointed to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner vide charge sheet dated 11.06.2016. 2. The short facts lying in narrow compass is that the petitioner was appointed to the post of General Mazdoor under Category I (T) on 22.04.2015 under the respondents in terms of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2012 of the Coal India Ltd. An FIR, being R.C. case No. 11 (A ) of 2015-R dated 15.12.2015 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 120 B read with Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner and other employees. It has been alleged in the FIR that on the basis of false and fabricated document submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner had managed to get employment under Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2012 of Coal India Ltd. 3. It is further the case of the petitioner that after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner on 30.06.2016 for the offences punishable under Section 120 B read with Section 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. From the Investigation, it reveals that the petitioner is nephew of Babu Chand Ram and has dishonestly and fraudulently obtained employment on the basis of false genealogical certificate, bearing No. 318 dated 31.12.2013 issued by the Circle Officer, Ramgarh. On the same set of allegation, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner in which memo of charge vide Letter No. 1936 dated 22.12.2015 was served upon the petitioner, directing him to submit his explanation within a week from the receipt of Memo of charge. On the same set of allegation, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner in which memo of charge vide Letter No. 1936 dated 22.12.2015 was served upon the petitioner, directing him to submit his explanation within a week from the receipt of Memo of charge. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his reply on 30.01.2016 before the respondent, explaining his stand in respect of Memo of Charge dated 22.12.2015 and denying the charges levelled against him. On being dissatisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, a disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct enquiry in respect of the charges levelled against the petitioner. It is further the case of the petitioner that upon completion of the enquiry, second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 4/5.4.2016 by the Disciplinary Authority/ General Manager, Rajrappa Area, wherein it was stated that as to why the penalty should not be imposed against him as the charges levelled against the petitioner have been found proved by the Enquiry Officer. Subsequently, on receipt of the same, the petitioner submitted his detailed explanation on 28.04.2016 before the respondents, denying the charges levelled against the petitioner and to exonerate him from the charges, but surprisingly, the respondents served a new charge sheet to the petitioner vide letter under Ref. No. PO/Karma/Disc.Act/16/399 dated 11.06.2016, to submit an explanation in respect of the charges levelled in the charges sheet dated 11.06.2016 within seven days from the date of receipt of the charge sheet. It is further the case of the petitioner that on perusal of the second charge sheet issued by the respondents, it appears that the charges levelled against the petitioner is based on the allegation alleged against the petitioner in connection with R.C. Case No. 11 (A) of 2015-R dated 15.12.2015 and the charge sheet submitted by the Central Bureau of Investigation. On receipt of the same, the petitioner again submitted his explanation before the respondents on 17.06.2016, apprising him regarding initiation of the departmental proceeding by issuing charge sheet dated 22.12.2015. Thereafter, the Senior Manager (Personnel)/Enquiry Officer issued notice of enquiry vide letter under Ref. No. PO/Pindra/Disc. Action/2017/584 dated 28.07.2017, wherein it was informed that the Senior Manager (Personnel) has been appointed as Enquiry officer to enquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner in connection with the charge sheet dated 11.06.2016. Thereafter, the Senior Manager (Personnel)/Enquiry Officer issued notice of enquiry vide letter under Ref. No. PO/Pindra/Disc. Action/2017/584 dated 28.07.2017, wherein it was informed that the Senior Manager (Personnel) has been appointed as Enquiry officer to enquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner in connection with the charge sheet dated 11.06.2016. It is the specific case of the petitioner that if departmental proceeding and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charges in the criminal case against a delinquent employee is of grave nature, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceeding till conclusion of the criminal case. Hence, this writ petition has been preferred. 4. Mr. Indrajeet Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents while passing the impugned order has not considered the fact that the charges in the departmental proceeding are replica of the charge sheet submitted by the CBI in criminal proceeding. Learned counsel further submits that on the facts of the case, the departmental proceedings needs to be quashed and set aside. He submits that if the departmental proceeding is allowed to continue, his entire defence will have to be opened, which will have direct adverse bearing upon the criminal case. He submits that the impugned order dated 11.06.2016 and 28.07.2017 are not sustainable in the eyes of law in view of the fact that in the cases in which charges in the departmental proceeding and the criminal proceeding are of same nature, completely based on same set of facts and evidence to be produced in the departmental proceeding and before the Trial Court, the same is liable to be quashed. 5. Per contra, counter affidavit have been filed on behalf of the respondents. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents very fairly submits that issues involved in this writ petition have already been decided by a co-ordinate Bench of this Hon''ble Court in its judgment delivered on 12.08.2016 in W.P.(S) No.4425 of 2015 and this Hon''ble Court on 02.07.2018 in W.P.(S) No.578 of 2017 and since the Hon''ble Court has dismissed the said writ applications, this case may also be dismissed in view of the observations made in W.P.(S) No.4425 of 2015 and W.P.(S) No.578 of 2017. 6. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the records, this Court is not inclined to interfere and accede to the prayer of the petitioner as the similar issue fell for consideration before this Hon''ble Court in W.P.(S) No.578 of 2017 and vide order dated 12.08.2016 in W.P.(S) No.4425 of 2015, a co-ordinate Bench of this Hon''ble Court was of the view that:- 22. In view of what has been held above, I am of the view that continuance of the departmental proceeding cannot be stayed merely because a criminal case of similar nature is pending against the petitioner. 23. In the facts and circumstances of this case, especially relying upon the judgment delivered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors. Vs. T.Srinivas , whose facts is similar to that of the case in hand, I do not find it proper to stay the departmental proceeding till disposal of the criminal case. 7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid judicial pronouncement, rules, guidelines and observations, I do not find any merit in the instant case. Resultantly, this writ petition stands dismissed.