ORDER 1. Special leave granted. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned a counsel for the respondent appearing as a caveator. 3. The facts reveal that the respondent, an employee of the appellant, was charge - sheeted for misconduct, in that, it was alleged that he had antedated the insurance policy cover note. A departmental enquiry was held against him in which the charge was held to be proved. Consequently, he was removed from service by an order dated 24 - 7 - 1979. Against the said order he preferred a departmental appeal but that too was dismissed on 29 - 9 - 1980. That is how the departmental proceedings terminated. 4. Mis Aman Singh Munshi Lal filed a suit on 7 - 10 - 1980 against Mis Milap Transport Co. in the Court of the Sub - Judge First Class, Hissar, claiming compensation for the loss of the goods in question. In that suit one of the questions which arose for consideration was in regard to the antedating of the cover note. The said suit was decreed by the learned trial Judge and the first appeal as well as the second appeal against the said decision came to be dismissed. 5. The respondent employee thereafter submitted a memorandum to the Managing Director of the appellant Company on 15 - 11 - 1980 questioning the removal order on the basis of the finding recorded by the civil court on the question of antedating of the cover note. That representation was rejected on 5 - 3 - 1981. Thereupon the respondent employee filed Writ Petition No. 3232 of 1981 challenging the order of removal from service in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. A learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition holding that the impugned order ran counter to the finding recorded by the civil court on the question of antedating of the cover note and, therefore, the impugned order of removal was bad in law. The appeal preferred against the said decision in the letters patent was dismissed by a Division Bench on 18 - 3 - 1994 and hence the present appeal. 6. From the above facts it becomes evident that the departmental proceedings against the respondent had concluded in his removal from f service. The appeal preferred against the said decision in the letters patent was dismissed by a Division Bench on 18 - 3 - 1994 and hence the present appeal. 6. From the above facts it becomes evident that the departmental proceedings against the respondent had concluded in his removal from f service. That conclusion was based on the evidence placed before the enquiry officer which was evaluated by the disciplinary authority as well as the departmental Appellate Authority. In a collateral suit filed by the consignor for damages for loss of goods by fire the defence was that the cover note was antedated. While examining that defence the civil court came to the conclusion that the same was not proved. That, however, cannot dislodge the decision earlier taken in the departmental enquiry based on the material and evidence placed at the said enquiry. The correctness or otherwise of the conclusion reached by the departmental authorities would depend on the enquiry record and the ultimate conclusion reached by the authorities can be shaken only on an evaluation of that record. Even if a suit had been filed for setting aside the removal order, the civil court could not have acted as an Appellate Authority. Therefore, the finding recorded in the suit cannot dislodge the finding recorded in the enquiry concluded earlier in point of time. Otherwise the decision of the civil court would appear to be one by an Appellate Authority against the departmental enquiry on a record that was not before the disciplinary authority. We, therefore, find it difficult to uphold the decision of the High Court holding that the decision of the civil court operates as res judicata and dislodges the decision taken in the departmental proceedings. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remit the matter to the learned Single Judge of the High Court for disposal on other points, if any, raised by the respondent employee in that petition. We may state that in the present appeal the appellant has also raised the contention that a writ petition under Article· 226 cannot lie against the appellant Company. It is not necessary for us to go into that question as we are setting aside the decision on another point. The appeal will stand disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.