JUDGMENT : Pankaj Bhandari, J. 1. Petitioner has preferred Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking quashing of F.I.R. No. RCJAI2015A0001 of 2015 registered at Police Station SPE, CBI, Jaipur and also preferred Criminal Writ Petition seeking quashing of entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 03/2016 pending before Special Judge CBI Cases No. 1, Jaipur pertaining to F.I.R. No. RCJAI2015A0001 of 2015 registered at Police Station SPE, CBI, Jaipur for offence under Section 420, 468, 471 of I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988. 2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the allegation against the petitioner is similar to that which was against other 165 bank employees and had taken excess money as reimbursement of LTC. 3. It is contended that as many as six cases were referred to the CBI, CBI has registered only two cases and has returned four cases to the bank for lodging report before the local Police. 4. It is also contended that in matters relating to other bank employees, employees were given charge-sheet and in departmental inquiry they were punished with punishment of censure and the excess amount that was taken by the employees was recovered by the bank. 5. It is contended that since case of the petitioner is similar to that of the other bank employees, continuation of the proceedings would result in grave injustice to the petitioner. 6. It is also contended that as per the guidelines issued by Central Vigilance Commission, for bank fraud in excess of Rs. 3 Crore. CBI can conduct the investigation for amount which is less than Rs. 3 Crore, the same has to be investigated by the local Police. 7. It is argued that contrary to the guidelines issued by CVC, CBI has conducted the investigation and submitted charge-sheet. 8. It is also contended that a letter was addressed by Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh, Rajasthan to the Superintendent CBI on 13.02.2015, wherein details of 165 bank employees who had availed LTC and had taken excess payment was mentioned but CBI has not proceeded against the other bank employees. 9. It is contended that departmental inquiry was also initiated against the petitioner and he was also punished with the punishment of censure and he was directed to refund the excess amount. 10. Counsel for the CBI has opposed the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and Criminal Writ Petition. 9. It is contended that departmental inquiry was also initiated against the petitioner and he was also punished with the punishment of censure and he was directed to refund the excess amount. 10. Counsel for the CBI has opposed the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and Criminal Writ Petition. It is contended by counsel for the CBI that the guidelines issued by the Central Vigilance Commission are not binding on the CBI and once the matter is entrusted to CBI under the Delhi Police Establishment Act. CBI is free to investigate the offence. 11. It is contended that the charge-sheet was filed way back in 2015, after filing of the charge-sheet, Court has taken cognizance and has framed charges against the petitioner and many witnesses have been examined till date. Now, the prayer of quashing of F.I.R. and the proceedings there on, cannot be entertained. 12. It is also contended that the prayer of petitioner that other bank employees have not been made accused, cannot be looked into in the writ jurisdiction and merely because in the departmental inquiry other bank employees have been punished with censure and have been directed to return the amount. Ingredients of criminal offences are not wiped out. 13. It is also contended that in criminal cases accused cannot claim parity with other persons not made accused. Accused had prepared forged E-Bills and has withdrawn LTC amount which was in excess of the amount spent by Rs. 2,54,273/-. The offences were thus made out against the petitioner. 14. I have considered the contentions and have gone through the record of the case. 15. There is specific allegations against the petitioner of having forged E-Bills and of claiming more amount than was due. Though, allegations against the other bank employees is also of similar nature. CBI proceeded against only two Officers and has submitted charge-sheet against two Officers. 16. The contention of counsel for the petitioner that CBI acted beyond its jurisdiction, as there was guidelines issued by CVC directing the CBI to probe cases where the fraud was more than Rs. 3 Crore, cannot be considered to be a binding direction, as the directions given by CVC under the Central Vigilance Act, 2003, is not mandatory in nature. Return of four cases by the CBI for getting the same investigated by the local Police, would not give any benefit to the accused. 3 Crore, cannot be considered to be a binding direction, as the directions given by CVC under the Central Vigilance Act, 2003, is not mandatory in nature. Return of four cases by the CBI for getting the same investigated by the local Police, would not give any benefit to the accused. Accused cannot claim parity with other Bank Officers, merely because other Bank Officers have not been prosecuted by the bank. 17. The factum of departmental inquiry being conducted against the petitioner and he being penalized of punishment of censure, cannot have any effect on the proceedings initiated under the Indian Penal Code, as departmental proceedings and proceedings under the Indian Penal Code can run parallel to each other. The fact that petitioner was found guilty in the departmental proceedings, further goes against the petitioner at this stage when the proceedings have commenced and many witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. Quashing of proceedings or directing the Authorities to proceed against other Bank employees, cannot be resorted, for the sole reason that in the writ jurisdiction, no orders can be passed against a person who is not a party to the Petition. 18. No ground is made out for entertaining the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking quashing of F.I.R. No. RCJAI2015A0001 of 2015 registered at Police Station SPE, CBI, Jaipur and Criminal Writ Petition seeking quashing of entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 03/2016 pending before Special Judge CBI Cases No. 1, Jaipur. 19. The Petitions are accordingly dismissed. 20. Stay applications stand disposed. 21. A copy of this order be placed in the connected file.