JUDGMENT : Ananda Sen, J. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for following reliefs :- i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/ direction(s) to stay the entire process of Departmental Proceeding initiated against the petitioner till the final disposal/outcome of the Criminal Case bearing R.C. Case no. 9 (A)/2010 (R) which is presently pending before the Court of Sri Rakesh Kumar, Ld. Special Judge CBI, Dhanbad wherein the evidences laid down or relied upon against the Petitioner in the Departmental Proceeding is part and parcel of the said Criminal Proceeding; ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) for quashing the Second Show Cause Letter (Annexure-8) whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been show caused as to why deduction in the petitioner’s pension not be made; 2. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondent - State. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that both the departmental proceeding and the criminal proceeding are based on the same facts and the evidence is also same. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that if the departmental proceeding against the petitioner is continued based on the same set of evidence, in spite of the fact that the criminal case is pending and proceeding against him, it will cause prejudice to the petitioner, thus, the departmental proceeding needs to be stayed. 4. I got no assistance from the office of the AAG-III, however the case solely depends on the point of law. 5. The petitioner was the Junior Engineer and now has already superannuated. 6. There is a departmental proceeding pending against the petitioner and so is the criminal case. The criminal case pending against the petitioner being R.C. Case No.9(A)/2010(R) relates to use of bitumen on the basis of forged bitumen purchase voucher. The petitioner is admittedly one of the accused in the aforesaid case. The criminal case was registered under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Admittedly the criminal case is proceeding. 7. Meanwhile, a departmental charge-sheet has been issued against the petitioner wherein the allegation against the petitioner is that without verifying the vouchers, he has passed the bills of the Contractor. Later on, it was detected that the vouchers are forged. 8. Admittedly the criminal case is proceeding. 7. Meanwhile, a departmental charge-sheet has been issued against the petitioner wherein the allegation against the petitioner is that without verifying the vouchers, he has passed the bills of the Contractor. Later on, it was detected that the vouchers are forged. 8. The appreciation of evidence in the criminal trial and the departmental proceeding is based on different principle. The standard of proof in both is not equal. So far as the departmental proceeding is concerned, on the basis of preponderance of probability, the guilt of the employee can be established. However, in a criminal case, the guilt has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt by the prosecution. 9. There is long line of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterating the position of law. Recently in the case of Airport Authority of India Vs. Pradip Kumar Banerjee reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 232, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is a principle of law that the burden laid upon the prosecution in criminal trial is to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. However, in a disciplinary enquiry, the burden on the department is limited and it is required to prove its case on the principle of preponderance of probability. 10. The departmental charge-sheet which is at Annexure-3 to the writ petition, gives reference to four documents by which the prosecution wants to prove the guilt of the petitioner. They are reproduced hereinbelow:- (i) Agreement No.04F2/2006-2007 (ii) Indent issued for bitumen supply (iii) Bitumen Invoice Verification Report (iv) Departmental Resolution Memo – 1680 (S) dated 26.03.2002. 11. From the criminal charge and the charge in the departmental proceeding, I find that both are different. In the criminal case, it will be decided as to who has forged the documents i.e the invoices and whether the petitioner has taken any illegal gratification and other ancillary aspects. So far as the departmental proceeding is concerned, the charge is that without verifying the genuineness of the invoice, the petitioner has countersigned and passed the bills. Both operates on a different field. The evidence which is necessary to prove the departmental charge is different. It cannot be said that it is the same as in the criminal trial. So far as the departmental proceeding is concerned, the charge is that without verifying the genuineness of the invoice, the petitioner has countersigned and passed the bills. Both operates on a different field. The evidence which is necessary to prove the departmental charge is different. It cannot be said that it is the same as in the criminal trial. Even if the documents in both the criminal case and the departmental proceeding are same but the consideration and proof thereof; and the extent of utilization of these documents and consideration of the same for evidence are absolutely different and operates on a different field, which cannot be negated. Thus, I find no ground to stay the departmental proceeding. 12. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed 13. I.A. No.1137 of 2025 also stands dismissed