S. B. Wad, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is working as an Assistant Manager (Depot) since 1971. In this petition, as originally framed, the petitioner hadprayed that the impending departmental proceedings against him on the samecharges as that of the criminal prosecution in which he was acquitted, bequashed. The admission Bench on 17. 11. 1989 issued the notice as to why rulenisi be not issued and stayed the. departmental enquiry. In spite of the stay ofenquiry proceeding the respondent made out that the enquiry was completedbefore the receipt of the stay order and the punishment was imposed of stoppage of three increments for the years 1990, 1991 and 1992. The petitioner wasnot served with a copy of the final order in the departmental proceeding. Thesame was annexed with the counter affidavit to the original writ petition. Thereafter the writ petition was amended, challenging the said order also. ( 2 ) IN the writ petition the petitioner has also claimed that he shouldhave been promoted at the appropriate time when his juniors were promoted. The promotions were denied to him because of the pendency of the criminalcase in which he was later on acquired. According to him a sealed cover procedure was followed by different DPCs right from 1986. During the course ofhearing the respondent Corporation was directed to produce the sealed coversand it was found that the petitioner was found fit for promotion. ( 3 ) THE petitioner has submitted that the charges in the criminal caseand the present departmental proceedings were completely identical and, therefore, the charge-sheet and further proceedings were bad. The charge-sheet inthe criminal case and the charge-sheet in the departmental proceeding was readout to us. We are satisfied that they are quite identical. The petitioner has beenhonourably acquitted by the Appellate Court in the said criminal case and thejudgement has become final. It is now a well-settled position in law that thedepartmental proceeding cannot be held on identical charges as that of acriminal trial in which the person is acquitted. On this short ground itself thewrit petition has to be allowed. ( 4 ) THE petitioner has further submitted that under Regulation 60 (2)of the Service Regulations applicable to the FCI, if the minor penalty proceedings have adverse effect on the retiral benefit of an employee, then the departmental proceedings should be held as if the major penalty is to be imposed. ( 4 ) THE petitioner has further submitted that under Regulation 60 (2)of the Service Regulations applicable to the FCI, if the minor penalty proceedings have adverse effect on the retiral benefit of an employee, then the departmental proceedings should be held as if the major penalty is to be imposed. Since the minor penalty of stoppage of three increments was imposed on thepetitioner which will affect the retrial benefits such as pension and gratuity, themajor penalty procedure should have been followed. His other submission isthat the departmental proceedings for the allegations of the petitioner s conductmore than a decade back, is bad in law because of latches. We need not gointo these submissions since we are satisfied that on the first submission itselfthe departmental proceedings and the punishment imposed should be quashed. Indeed the counsel for the respondent Corporation had hardly any argument tobe advanced on this question. ( 5 ) SINCE the petitioner had been honourably acquitted in the criminalproceedings and the departmental proceedings are also now being quashed,there is no reason why the petitioner should be denied the chance of promotionwhen his juniors were promoted. As stated earlier we have seen the confidentialreports as well as the sealed covers kept by the DPC in which the petitionerwas found fit for promotion. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to promotionfrom 1986 and we order accordingly. ( 6 ) THE writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. Counsel fee Rs. 1000. 00.