Honble PALLI, J. — The appellant was a Constable. A case under Section 452, 323 and 427 I.P.C. was registered against him and he was tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Salumber for these offences and after trial was convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated 5.10.1987, against which an appeal was preferred and the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur Camp Salumber vide his judgment dated 11.8.1988 allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant of all the offences. (2). A departmental enquiry was initiated against the appellant and the disciplinary enquiry proceeded simultaneously with the criminal trial and the proceedings were never got stayed by the appellant. After receipt of the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority after considering the representation of the appellant and after looking into the record imposed the punishment of removal/dismissal from service vide order dated 31.1.1W5 and the appeal against this order was dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Udaipur vide order dated 16.10.1986. It would be pertinent to mention here at this stage that this punishment came to be awarded to the appellant much before he was convicted by the learned Magistrate on 5.10.1987 and this order in appeal too was handed down much before the conviction by the learned Magistrate. It is also pertinent to observe here at this stage that the appellant made no challenge to the order passed by the appellate authority and the order became final. (3). After the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitting the appellant, he moved an application before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Udaipur for his reinstatement in service which request was turned down vide Annex. 11 dated 23.2.1989. It was against this order as well as the order of dismissal Annex. 8 by the Disciplinary Authority that the appellant filed a writ petition before this Court which was heard and dismissed by the learned Single Judge and it is against this order the present appeal has come up before us. (4). Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. M. Mridul has forcefully contended that the disciplinary proceedings and the trial could not have been permitted to go together. The two proceedings that went on simultaneously have resulted in manifest injustice to the appellant and since the charges were the same the disciplinary proceedings should nol have been allowed to continue. (5). (4). Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. M. Mridul has forcefully contended that the disciplinary proceedings and the trial could not have been permitted to go together. The two proceedings that went on simultaneously have resulted in manifest injustice to the appellant and since the charges were the same the disciplinary proceedings should nol have been allowed to continue. (5). Learned counsel further contends that since the appellant had been acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, he was entitled to be reinstated and for this proposition he has invited our attention to Kundan Singh Jhala vs. State of Rajasthan (1) ; R.P. Kapur vs. Union of India and Another (2); Kushewar Dubey vs. M/s. Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. and Others (3); Ram Chandra vs. Union of India and Others (4) and Mohd. Umar vs. The Rajasthan State Electricity Board and Another (5). Learned counsel deriving strength from these decisions has put forward the argument that since the departmental enquiry and the criminal trial went simultaneously and the trial was concluded in acquittal the departmental enquiry and the penalty imposed therein was improper. (6). We have carefully given our thought to the case law cited by the learned counsel at the Bar and to the submissions made. We do not find any force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel. These decisions referred to above were also cited before the learned Single Judge and were examined in the impugned order. In our considered opinion there was no statutory bar for the two proceedings to go on simultaneously and the proceedings before the Disciplinary Authority already stood concluded and punishment had been imposed on the basis of the enquiry itself and the acquittal of the appellant later by the criminal court had no effect whatsoever on the conclusions arrived at in the enquiry resulting in punishment. These proceedings became final much before the verdict of the. criminal trial and there was hardly any justification for the authorities to reconsider the case of the appellant after more than two years of the conclusion of the proceedings and finality of the order on the basis of the findings recorded by the criminal court in appeal. (7). It is further pertinent to point out that the punishment of the appellant was not based on the findings of conviction recorded by the learned Magistrate. (7). It is further pertinent to point out that the punishment of the appellant was not based on the findings of conviction recorded by the learned Magistrate. It was totally an independent enquiry and the acquittal by the criminal court later had no effect whatsoever on those proceedings. It was also noted by the learned Single Judge that apart from common charges, yet there was charge No.6 relating to absence of the appellant from duty and a delinquent employee against whom proceedings by the Disciplinary Authority are initiated it would be open for the said authority to proceed since the two proceedings are entirely different in nature and aimed at to achieve different ends. The appellant could have and should have made efforts to get the disciplinary proceedings stayed in the situation but no such attempt was made and the proceedings were allowed to continue till punishment and the appellant woke up from his slumber after more than two years on his acquittal by the appellate court. The proceedings which are initiated by the employer are aimed at to ensure the proper conduct of the employee and are further aimed at to maintain discipline and dignity while in service and further that unscrupulous element may not be continued - in service. The object of the criminal trial is to punish the offender and the court dealing with the trial has no jurisdiction to take any disciplinary action against an unscrupulous employee since that domain exclusively vests in the Disciplinary Authority. The proceedings by the department can well proceed to find out the misconduct of the employee even if a criminal case is pending on identical facts. The proceedings, thus, taken by the disciplinary Authority do not suffer from any illegality or impropriety. Nothing has been brought to our notice that those proceedings were contrary to the rules or that there was any bar under the Act or the Rules for that matter. (8). Coming to the fact as to in the given situation what would be the effect of acquittal of the appellant on the disciplinary enquiry conducted by the authorities culminating in his dismissal on the basis of the material on record. The appellant has been found guilty by the District Superintendent of Police which order was confirmed in appeal by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Udaipur. The appellant has been found guilty by the District Superintendent of Police which order was confirmed in appeal by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Udaipur. The appellant was also found guilty by the learned Magistrate and was convicted. The acquittal later by the Additional Sessions Judge in appeal was of no consequence on the proceedings which had been concluded long before and the order having not been challenged further had become final. No fault has been found with the said enquiry nor any material has been pointed out from the record to take a contrary view. The case law cited by the learned counsel are not applicable to the peculiar facts of this case and moreover the findings recorded by the learned criminal court are not binding so far as the proceedings before the Disciplinary Authority were concerned. In the situation there was hardly any occasion for the Deputy Inspector General of Police to reconsider the case of the appellant for his reinstatement in service or reducing the punishment. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order has considered the merits of the case from every possible angle and after hearing both the sides a well reasoned order has been handed down. (9). We are in respectful agreement to the reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed.