JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. T. N. Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-Anti Corruption Bureau. 3. This petition has been filed for the following reliefs: - ''for quashing of entire criminal case being Vigilance Case No. 30/2016, arising out of Sadar Vigilance P.S. Case No. 28/2016 including order dated 20/7/2016 passed by the learned Special Judge, A.C.B. Hazaribag wherein cognizance of the offences under section 7/13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been taken and also order granting sanction passed by the learned District Magistrate, Hazaribag issued vide Memo No. 602 dated 1.7.2016 wherein sanction for prosecution of the petitioner under section 7/13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been granted as against the petitioner in connection with Vigilance Case No. 30/2016, arising out of Sadar Vigilance P.S. Case No. 28/2016. Pending in the court of learned Special Judge, A.C.B., Hazaribag.'' 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that earlier vide order dated 02.06.2017, the learned court below has rejected the discharge petition of the petitioner, which was subject matter of challenge in Criminal Revision No. 1396/2017 which was dismissed vide order dated 08.05.2019. The learned counsel further submits that present case has been filed considering the fact that the petitioner has been exonerated in departmental proceeding on the same self-set of allegation. The learned counsel has referred to the charges in the departmental proceeding which is contained at Page-53 to the main petition and the order exonerating the petitioner by the competent authority which is dated 27.06.2019 and contained in Page-55 of this petition. 5. The learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, opposes the prayer and submits that the petitioner was caught red handed with bribe money and the present criminal case arises out of a trap case and the necessary sanction for prosecution has already been obtained which is contained at Annexure-4 to the main petition. The learned counsel further submits that the allegation which was levelled in the departmental proceeding, is not the same, as that of the allegation made in the trap case. The learned counsel also submits that the discharge petition of the petitioner was already rejected by the learned court below against which revision application has been dismissed. 6. The learned counsel further submits that the allegation which was levelled in the departmental proceeding, is not the same, as that of the allegation made in the trap case. The learned counsel also submits that the discharge petition of the petitioner was already rejected by the learned court below against which revision application has been dismissed. 6. So far as the allegation levelled in the criminal case is concerned, one complaint was filed in the office of Anti- Corruption Bureau that the complainant had filed an application for mutation and the file was pending with the petitioner who demanded Rs. 800/- per deed. It was also stated that along with the complainant two other persons had also applied for mutation. Upon verification of the complaint, a verification report dated 07.04.2016 was prepared and the allegation was found correct. Thereafter, a trap team was constituted and money was recovered from the drawer of the petitioner as seizure list was prepared. 7. After hearing the counsel for the patties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the allegation which was levelled against the petitioner in the departmental proceeding was interalia relating to the delay on the part of the petitioner in placing the records and it was also alleged that the petitioner did not conduct his duties as per the rules. This Court further finds that the aforesaid allegation was not proved in the departmental proceeding and the petitioner was exonerated from the charges levelled against him. The order exonerating the petitioner also reflects that the authority was conscious about the pending criminal case against the petitioner. 8. Considering the nature of allegation which was levelled against the petitioner in the departmental proceeding and the nature of allegation which is involved in the present criminal case, this Court is of the considered view that the scope of departmental proceeding and the present criminal case are entirely different and the proceeding in the departmental proceeding has no bearing in the criminal case. Accordingly, contention of the petitioner that on same self-set of allegation, the petitioner has been exonerated in the departmental proceeding, therefore, the criminal case including the order taking cognizance should also be set-aside, is not acceptable. Accordingly, this petition is hereby dismissed. 9. Let this order be communicated to the learned court below through FAX.