ORDER RAVI MALIMATH, C. J. : – Aggrieved by the order dated 8-12-2021 passed by learned Single Judge dismissing the W. P. No. 26534 of 2021, the writ petitioner is in appeal. 2. The writ petition was filed seeking to quash the order dated 28-11-2020 passed by the Assistant Commissioner Cooperative, District Katni directing certain recovery on the writ petitioner of the fair price shop and has also directed for registration of an F.I.R. besides taking disciplinary action under the service jurisprudence. 3. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the disciplinary proceedings as well as criminal proceedings can take place simultaneously, therefore, no interference is called for. That the interim order granted by the coordinate Single Bench was not applied by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the interim order is distinguishable on its fact and is not binding. On considering the reasons assigned, we do not find any ground to interfere with the same. 4. So far as the parity is concerned, we have considered the order granted by the learned Single Judge in W. P. No. 18991 of 2021 dated 22-9-2021. Therein the petition was disposed off with a direction to the authority that before initiating any action the authority shall first ascertain whether petitioner has deposited the amount proposed to be recovered or not and in the event it is found that such amount has already been deposited, the authorities are expected not to take any action pursuant to the impugned letter. By order dated 21-9-2021 passed in W. P. No. 19495 of 2021 it was held that since the petitioner have already deposited the amount, as an interim measure no further coercive action can be taken against them pursuant to the impugned order till the next date of hearing. 5. We are of the considered view that both the orders may not be correct in the given facts and circumstances involved. However, it is for the learned Single Judge to decide as to whether it is valid or not. We say so in view of the fact that firstly, a disciplinary proceeding as well as a criminal proceeding can proceed simultaneously. However, it is for the learned Single Judge to decide as to whether it is valid or not. We say so in view of the fact that firstly, a disciplinary proceeding as well as a criminal proceeding can proceed simultaneously. Secondly, the view of the learned Single Judge that if payment of money has been made the authorities are expected not to take any action pursuant to the impugned letter therein, in our considered view is an order beyond the jurisdiction of the writ court. The authorities have a jurisdiction to proceed against the accused in a manner known to law. The payment or non-payment of the money is of no consequence. It is ultimately a matter of trial. Therefore, whether the amount is paid or not the offence has since been committed. Therefore, the Court cannot direct the authorities namely the police not to register an F.I.R. against the accused. It is only when an FIR is registered against the accused then its validity may be questioned. The filing of the FIR cannot be preempted in this manner. The authorities are expected to function under statute and interference in the statutory duties in our considered view is highly uncalled for. Therefore, the order granted in the earlier writ petition according to us may not be appropriate. 6. Under these circumstances, the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge herein is just and appropriate. There cannot be a direction not to register an FIR against the writ petitioner herein. However, the writ petitioner is always entitled to challenge the FIR if and when it is filed against him. 7. For all these reasons we find no good ground to interfere in the well considered order passed by the learned Single Judge. 8. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.