CHANDRAKANTARAJ URS, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER who is a Driver of the respondent Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation is aggrieved by the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 11-11-1986 made in exercise of his power under Regulation 19 (2) of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations read with Schedule appended thereto. He has accepted the enquiry authority's findings that the petitioner who was driving the vehicle bearing registration mark MYF-6656 on National Highway between Hassan and Mangalore drove the said vehicle negligently and collided with taxi bearing registration mark MYG-4532 resulting in damages to both vehicles and causing death to four of the passengers at the spot of the accident. ( 2 ) THE Enquiry Officer has discussed the material on which he came to the conclusion that the accident would have been avoided if the driver of the vehicle belonging to the Corporation was conscious of the on-coming vehicles. ( 3 ) THE main contention is that the criminal case lodged against the petitioner-driver having resulted in acquittal, on the same charge he could not have been subjected to a domestic enquiry and punished. It is also contended that the domestic enquiry was commenced nearly four years after the accident and one year after the acquittal and therefore the disciplinary authority was in error in imposing the punishment - punishment being reduction of two stages in his pay permanently. ( 4 ) AN acquittal or discharge in criminal proceedings may be as a result of the incompetent prosecution or good defence by the accused. The degree or standard of proof required for conviction in a criminal prosecution should be such as to put beyond the pale of doubt the guilt of the accused. If there is doubt however slight, then as of right in our jurisprudence, accused is entitled to an order of acquittal. ( 5 ) THE same cannot be said in respect of a domestic enquiry on the charge of driving the vehicle negligently. There is vast difference in the approach of the employer of a driver in regard to his duties and negligence while performing those duties than a charge which the same driver has to face in a Criminal Court under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. There is vast difference in the approach of the employer of a driver in regard to his duties and negligence while performing those duties than a charge which the same driver has to face in a Criminal Court under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The employer is liable to pay heavy damages to the vehicle as well, as to the survivors of the dead persons in an accident. Therefore it does not necessarily look for the criminal negligence which the Court has to look for in prosecution under Section 304-A of. P. C He looks for the carefulness with which the driver safeguards the interests of the Corporation and not subject "it to heavy liability by his negligence by way of damages. Therefore the approach to be made is totally different and if in that context a domestic enquiry is held in respect of the same accident it cannot be equated with the criminal Trial of the person on the same charge. ( 6 ) I see no reason to interfere with the order of the Disciplinary Authority. Petition is rejected. ( 7 ) BEFORE parting with this case I must necessarily notice the reliance placed by the Learned counsel for petitioner on the decision of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of R. J. Divekar v. Union of India and Ors. , 1985 (1) LLJ 302. In the said case involving a driver of a railway engine the Division Bench of that High Court came to the conclusion that where there was an acquittal by the Criminal Court on merits, the departmental enquiry on the same charge could not be held to be proper. With respect I do not think that decision is in conformity with the law laid down by the Supreme Court which has categorically held that an acquittal in criminal case is no bar for departmental enquiry or disciplinary proceedings departmentally. See: State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. v. S. Sree Rama Rao, AIR1963 SC 1723 , (1964 )II LLJ150 SC , [1964 ]3 SCR25.