Judgment Loknath Prasad, J. 1. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 8.2.1983 (Annexure 4) recorded by Respondent No.1 in B.S.E. Case No. 15/76 whereby and whereunder the complaint case filed under Bihar Shops Establishment Act, 1954 by the petitioner was dismissed and his dismissal order recorded by the Bank authority was duly confirmed. 2. According to the petitioner, he was employed as clerk-cum-typist in Dhanbad branch of State Bank of India and he was also confirmed in the post of typist. It has been alleged that on 8.4.1974 in the Dhanbad branch of State Bank of India, one Badri Ram holder of Cheque No. 827709 for Rs. 6502.66 ps. drawn by the Executive Engineer, Works Division Dhanbad presented it for payment at the Govt. Counter and after due verification he was given token No. 471. However, Respondent No. 2 made an allegation that the petitioner somehow or other opened token No. 431 and in course of transmission of the cheque fraudulently altered the number of the token on the aforesaid cheque from 471 to 431 and obtained the payment on the strength of token No. 431 through some person and the petitioner has shown undue interest in transmission of the cheque from one table to another. After that when the holder of token No. 471 came then it was detected that the amount of the cheque was taken away by some other person and so the Bank Manager lodged an FIR on that very date under Sec. 420 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code before Dhanbad police. During the course of investigation in the aforesaid criminal case Baidyanath Singh, cashier, admitted before the police that it was merely a clerical mistake and subsequently the amount of the cheque had also been paid to Badri Ram and so it is not a case of fraud, and, thus, the police submitted final report stating that it is a mistake of fact. The Branch Manager also vide his memo No. 32 dated 17.4.1994 issued a warning to the petitioner for this very occurrence and advised him to be cautious in future and his conduct and performance were also being watched. 3. The Branch Manager also vide his memo No. 32 dated 17.4.1994 issued a warning to the petitioner for this very occurrence and advised him to be cautious in future and his conduct and performance were also being watched. 3. So it has been alleged that for the occurrence dated 8.4.1974, the police case was instituted in which final report was submitted and the Branch Manager for the negligence or misconduct if any has already awarded a punishment of warning, but inspite of that a departmental proceeding was Initiated and charges were levelled for interpolation of the Bank record and misappropriation of the money of the Bank and ultimately the petitioner was dismissed from services by order dated 24.3.1976. After that the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 26(2) of the Shops and Establishment Act before the Labour Court, that is, Respondent No. 1 but unfortunately Respondent No. 1 also dismissed the complaint and the dismissal order passed by the Bank was confirmed. Against that the petitioner filed a civil revision, but as if was held by this Court that in such cases civil revision is not maintainable, so this writ application had been filed for quashing the order of the Labour Court. 4. On behalf of Respondent No. 2, a counter affidavit has been filed and it was submitted that the petitioner while working as a typist committed gross misconduct and interpolation in the Bank record and the cheque and dishonestly obtained payment of cheque No. 827709 for Rs. 6502.66 ps. which was drawn in favour of the Executive Engineer concerned. It has been submitted that on 8.4.1974 Badri Ram presented the aforesaid cheque in Govt. counter of Dhanbad Branch and token No. 471 was issued to him, but this petitioner during transit of the cheque altered the token No. from 471 to 431 and had shown extra interest in transmission of cheque from one table to another and obtained payment through another person, but when Badri Ram came with genuine token No. 471, then this fraud was detected and the petitioner who obtained the money by fraud actually repaid the amount and then it was paid to Badri Ram on 10.4.1974. However, for this fraud and interpolation in the Bank record, FIR was lodged on 8.4.1974. However, for this fraud and interpolation in the Bank record, FIR was lodged on 8.4.1974. No doubt the police submitted final report only on the basis of the wrong statement of the cashier, but admittedly, there was misconduct on the part of the petitioner which was serious in nature and so departmental proceeding was initiated in which the petitioner was chargesheeted and he was given ample opportunity and due to gravity of the offence he was dismissed from service by order dated 24.3.1976. 5. Against the dismissal order, the petitioner filed a complaint under the Shops & Establishment Act before Respondent No. 1 where again evidence was adduced on behalf of both the parties and the Labour Court also came to the conclusion that departmental enquiry was conducted properly and reasonable opportunity was granted and there was sufficient evidence on record to prove the misconduct of the petitioner and thus upheld the dismissal order. So there is concurrent finding of misconduct and interpolation in the record of the Bank and as such in writ jurisdiction it does not require any interference. It was also submitted that so called warning issued to the petitioner by Bank Manager of the Branch was not in pursuance of any departmental enquiry; rather the warning was in the nature of administrative warning pending departmental proceeding and criminal case so that the petitioner will be cautious and as such warning is not a punishment and so the departmental proceeding has rightly proceeded and necessary punishment was awarded. 6. So it is admitted case of the parties that while the petitioner was working as clerk-cum-typist in Dhanbad branch of the State Bank of India and cheque of Rs. 6502.66 on Govt. account was presented by one Badri Ram for encashment and after verification a token bearing No. 471 was issued to Badri Ram on 8.4.1974, but during departmental enquiry it was found that this very petitioner during transmission of the cheque interpolated the cheque and changed the token number from 471 to 431 and was instrumental in obtaining the payment of this cheque through wrong token No. 431 and subsequently when this fraud was detected, this petitioner repaid the amount on 10.4.1974 which was ultimately paid to Badri Ram. So the misconduct, negligence, interpolation is definitely there to Connect the complicity of the petitioner. 7. So the misconduct, negligence, interpolation is definitely there to Connect the complicity of the petitioner. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has not challenged any illegality or irregularity in the departmental enquiry and they only grievance of the petitioner as submitted by is learned Counsel is that for the same occurrence, a criminal case was instituted but the police submitted a final report stating therein that it is a case of mistake of fact. In that view of the matter and as the Bank was not put to any loss, because the amount of cheque which was withdrawn through another token No. 431 had already been repaid and holder of the cheque was paid the amount so in all fairness there was no necessity for any departmental enquiry and awarding of the punishment. In this connection it may be said that actually the police submitted final report as a mistake of fact only due to the statement of the cashier recorded by the Investigating Officer mainly for the reason that as the amount as already been deposited in the Bank and it was again paid to the right person, so under this wrong interpretation final report was submitted, though definitely there was interpolation in the cheque itself by changing the token number and fraud was also committed by dishonestly obtaining the amount of the cheque through a wrong token number. 8. Even assuming that the criminal case instituted for the same occurrence terminated in favour of the delinquent employee then still there is no two opinion that departmental enquiry will proceed and it is a settled law that a criminal case and departmental enquiry can proceed simultaneously and scope and method of both the enquiry and the nature of proof in both such enquiries are quite different. In a criminal case, the enquiry is conducted only to prove the guilt or so-called offence allegedly committed by any delinquent employees, but in the departmental enquiry, the misconduct or violation of any rule governing the service conditions are to be enquired for which necessary punishment is to be awarded to tone up the departmental administration. 9. In a criminal case, the enquiry is conducted only to prove the guilt or so-called offence allegedly committed by any delinquent employees, but in the departmental enquiry, the misconduct or violation of any rule governing the service conditions are to be enquired for which necessary punishment is to be awarded to tone up the departmental administration. 9. The Supreme Court in a case reported in Corporation of City of Nagpur Civil Lines V/s. Ramchandra -- , also held that whether or to a departmental enquiry pending against its servants if he is acquitted in criminal case would have not continue, is a matter to be decided by the Departmental itself after considering the nature of the findings given by the criminal Court. Normally where the accused is acquitted honourably and completely exonerated of the charges, it would not be expedient to continue departmental enquiry on the very same charges or grounds or evidence but the fact remains that merely because the accused is acquitted, the power of the authority to continue the departmental enquiry is not taken away nor is its direction in any way fettered. Similarly in a case reported in Sudhir Bishnu Panvalkar V/s. Bank of India -- , it was also held that if an employee is acquitted in a criminal case, still in a departmental enquiry if any punishment is awarded, then it does not require any interference. 10. Thus it can be said that even though the petitioner was exonerated in a criminal case and the final report was submitted that too on technical ground, then there is no illegality in holding a departmental enquiry for his misconduct and after conclusion of such departmental enquiry even punishment can be awarded. 11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also criticised the entire initiation of departmental enquiry and the punishment awarded to the petitioner mainly for the reason that for this very occurrence the Bank Manager vide his Memo No. 32 dated 17.4.1974 issued the warning to the petitioner and the petitioner was asked to be cautious in future and his conduct and performance was being watched closely and thus it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that for the same occurrence, the superior officer of the petitioner after holding an enquiry awarded punishment of warning. In such a situation by awarding punishment of dismissal in the regular enquiry is totally illegal and unjustified and it amounts to second punishment in the same enquiry for the same allegation. 12. At the very outset it can be said that so-called warning to the petitioner to be cautious in future and his conduct is being watched closely, is merely an administrative order of the Bank Manager, that too, when the investigation of the criminal case was going on and a regular departmental proceeding was expected to be initiated. Only by way of extra pre-caution and the order is nothing but an administrative order in the capacity of the Controlling Officer and actually this order was not passed after obtaining any explanation or instituting any departmental enquiry. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that this order of warning was issued by the Branch Manager of the Bank by way of punishment, that too, in a departmental enquiry. In such situation, the petitioner is not expected to take the advantage that he had already been punished by issue of a warning letter. So practically there is no merit in this contention of the learned lawyer for the petitioner. 13. So it clearly indicates that the petitioner being an employee of a Bank committed gross misconduct and also interpolated in the cheque itself and fraudulently obtained the payment of cheque, though subsequently returned the amount but it appears that his action being an employee of the Bank is certainly of serious nature and such conduct definitely even caused loss of confidence of the employer. There is no two opinion that the Bank employees of are trustee and they are custodian or the trustees of the money being entrusted by the customer. In such a situation, employees of the Bank has to maintain a high standard of conduct and in such type of case, amounting to gross misconduct and interpolation in the Bank record, that too, for wrongful gain by the employee definitely requires severe punishment. In the departmental proceeding and also from the evidence adduced before the Labour Court the misconduct which is serious in nature is well proved. The Supreme Court also in Sudhir Bishnu Panvalkar (supra) observed that in case of Bank Officer involved in commission of financial impropriety, termination of service is justified because it also amounts to lack of confidence by the employer. The Supreme Court also in Sudhir Bishnu Panvalkar (supra) observed that in case of Bank Officer involved in commission of financial impropriety, termination of service is justified because it also amounts to lack of confidence by the employer. In such situation and in view of gravity of offence and misconduct of the petitioner, punishment of dismissal as awarded by the Management and found to be correct by the Labour Court also does not require any interference. 14. In the result, there is no merit in this application and so it is dismissed, but without any costs. Application dismissed.