JUDGMENT 1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AR. Lakshmanan, J.- The Southern Railway is the appellant in this appeal. The writ appeal is directed against the order of Guttal, J. in O. P. Mo. 9478 of 1988 allowing the Original Petition filed by the respondent herein whereby the appellate order No. 1 dated 22nd September 1988, Ext. P-12, confirming the order of dismissal of the respondent from service was quashed. The learned Single Judge further held that the petitioner should be treated to have been in the employment as Railway Rakshak notwithstanding the orders impugned in this petition and quashed by him and that the respondent should be entitled to all the benefits such as salary, allowances, seniority, promotion, etc., as if the impugned orders were never made. It was further ordered that if the respondent had crossed the age of superannuation, he should be paid all the benefits such as provident fund, gratuity, etc. 2. A brief resume of the background of this case is necessary to appreciate the rival contentions. The respondent, while working as Rakshak in the Railway Protection Force, (in short 'the R.P.F.') was charged with the offence of murdering another Rakshak by name Gopalakrishnan on 11th April 1978. He was convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment by the Sessions Court. But, on appeal, he was acquitted by a Division Bench of this Court by giving the benefit of doubt under Ext. P-1 Judgment of this Court in Crl. Appeal No. 331 of 1978 dated 6th March, 1978. This Court, while disposing of the appeal, concluded as follows: "It has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant is guilty of the offence for which he has been convicted. Therefore, his appeal is allowed, his conviction and sentence are set aside and he is acquitted." The Department initiated disciplinary proceedings against him regarding the incident, as per the provisions of the Railway Protection Force Rules. The respondent moved an Original Petition, O. P. No. 3439 of 1980 before this Court, inter alia challenging the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him even after his acquittal in the Criminal case. A Division Bench of this Court disposed of the Original Petition on list July 1986 permitting the initiation of disciplinary proceedings. Thereafter, the respondent was issued with a charge memorandum on 15th July 1987. A Division Bench of this Court disposed of the Original Petition on list July 1986 permitting the initiation of disciplinary proceedings. Thereafter, the respondent was issued with a charge memorandum on 15th July 1987. The charge in short was in respect of the grave and reprehensible conduct of the respondent in that he, while working as Rakshak at Shoranur, stabbed to death his colleague one Gopalakrishnan, on the night of 11th April 1978. In this context it is useful to reproduce the Statement of Allegations accompanying the charge sheet which reads as follows: "Sri K. Sreedharan was working as R.P.F. Rakshak No. 196 at Shoranur out post during 1978. Sri Gopalakrishnan along with one Velayudhan came to SRR by train on his way to CAN, his native place. At SRR they met delinquent and went to his room at Paran's lane at his invitation. There both Gopalakrishnan and his companion had alcoholic drink with the charged employee and R. K. Chamuni, etc., or SRR post. At that time there was a prostitute named Sathyabhama hired by the delinquent waiting inside the charged employee's room. After consuming liquor, Gopalakrishnan had sexual enjoyment with Sathyabhama but he did not pay any amount, to her. This resulted in a quarrel between the charged employee and Gopalakrishnan, and the charged employee tried to hit Gopalakrishnan, with a dagger, but pacified by others, they dispersed without any untoward incident and everybody left the place. At 9 p.m. towards R.P.F. Officer, SRR Sri Velayudhan companion of Gopalakrishnan left the place by bus. Thereafter the charged employee again quarreled with Gopalakrishnan while he was standing near the R.P.F. Office at 9.30 p. m. This ended in a conflict between the two and the charged employee stabbed Gopalakrishnan with a knife on the left side of the abdomen and also on the back above the hip. Gopalakrishnan fell on the steps of the R.P.F. Office and was found dead with stab injuries. Sri P. Mohamed, Rakshak, Shoranur saw the dead body first and informed the Railway Police, SRR. The delinquent then left the place of occurrence and met Chamuni and confessed that he had stabbed Gopalakrishnan. Shri Chamuni went to the place and found he deceased lying with stab injuries. A.S.I.P.F., SRR Sri Kuttisankaran (now retired) found the dead body of Gopalakrishnan with stab injuries and at his instance the case was reported to Railway Police, Shornur. The delinquent then left the place of occurrence and met Chamuni and confessed that he had stabbed Gopalakrishnan. Shri Chamuni went to the place and found he deceased lying with stab injuries. A.S.I.P.F., SRR Sri Kuttisankaran (now retired) found the dead body of Gopalakrishnan with stab injuries and at his instance the case was reported to Railway Police, Shornur. In the course of investigation, the charged employee was arrested by the Inspector of Police on 19th April 1978 at 5 p. m. at SRR and his statement was recorded. The material objects, knife, chappels, etc., were seized by the police during the investigation. The police filed a charge sheet before the court against the charged R.K. for an offence of murder. Thus from the above Acts, the conduct of the charged employee is highly reprehensible, unworthy which is quite unbecoming of a member of a disciplined Force like R.P.F. Hence the charge." The respondent was asked to submit his written statement of defence not later than 30th July 1987. On receiving the Memorandum of Charges, the respondent requested for perusal and taking extracts of the documents referred to in the Charge Memorandum and, after taking the extracts of the documents, he submitted his written statement, Ext.P-5, on 28th July 1987. In his objections the respondent has submitted that even on the fact of records the incident was not committed while he was on duty and that in the light of the Judgment in the Criminal Appeal, the charge is not sustainable. It was further stated that due to long lapse of 9 years, the persons who have witnessed the incident may not be in a position to testify the real incident due to lapse of memory, etc. After several adjournments, the enquiry was conducted on 19th January 1988, 28th January 1988, 8th February 1988 and 26th February 1988. It is to be noted that the respondent had given the name of an Assistant Sub Inspector of the Railway Protection Force, by name Gopalakrishna Pillai as his defence helper to Assist him in the enquiry, which was accepted. However, he was later told that the said employee being in another Division of Railway, viz, Trivandrum Division, whereas the petitioner belonged to Palghat Division, and the enquiry is also in Palghat Division by the staff in Palghat, it may be difficult to arrange the presence of defence helper depart-mentally. However, he was later told that the said employee being in another Division of Railway, viz, Trivandrum Division, whereas the petitioner belonged to Palghat Division, and the enquiry is also in Palghat Division by the staff in Palghat, it may be difficult to arrange the presence of defence helper depart-mentally. Therefore, the respondent was asked to nominate employees in Palghat Division as his defence helpers. However, this was not done by him. Instead, he under took to arrange the presence of his defence helper Gopalakrishna Pillai by himself. The respondent was given a number of chances to arrange his defence helper Gopalakrishna Pillai or nominate some others belonging to Palghat Division. But he did not do any of these things. Ultimately, he said he will defend the enquiry by himself. He participated in the enquiry throughout. As it was said that the respondent does not know English and the Enquiry Officer does not know Malayalam, the services of a graduate officer by name Mohanan, who knows Malayalam also, was made available for translation of depositions, etc. After the enquiry was completed, the respondent gave a detailed defence statement. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report finding that the charge against the respondent has been proved. The disciplinary authority, in turn, issued a penalty advice dismissing the respondent from service. His appeal was rejected by the Appellate Authority. The respondent challenged the appellate order O.P. 9478 of 1988. The appellant Railways filed a detailed counter affidavit along with copies of Exts. R-1 (a) to R-1 (i) explaining its stand. It was also submitted that the mere fact that the respondent got an acquittal in the criminal case ultimately will not disentitle the appellant from initiating disciplinary proceedings against the respondent regarding the incident in question. It is also submitted that the standard of proof required in a criminal case and the standard of proof required in a disciplinary enquiry are entirely different. The allegation regarding disproportionate nature of the punishment was also denied as not sustainable. Regarding the allegation of violation of principles of natural justice it was submitted that as Mr. Gopalakrishna Pillai was an employee of Trivandrum Division while the delinquent and the enquiry proceedings were in Palghat Division, the respondent was asked to nominate any defence helper from Palghat Division, which will be clear from the letter dated 6th January 1988, copy of which is produced as Ext. Gopalakrishna Pillai was an employee of Trivandrum Division while the delinquent and the enquiry proceedings were in Palghat Division, the respondent was asked to nominate any defence helper from Palghat Division, which will be clear from the letter dated 6th January 1988, copy of which is produced as Ext. R-1 (h). The respondent was also instructed to produce the letter of willingness of his defence helper at 10. 00 Hrs. on 10th January 1988 at Erode. However, the respondent did not nominate or arrange any other defence helper. Again, another letter dated 16th January 1988 was sent requesting the respondent to nominate two defence helpers, who know English and Malayalam, in the order of preference. The date of enquiry was fixed on 19th January 1988. However, on 19th January 1988 the respondent had not brought any defence helper, but he agreed to defend the case himself. Accordingly, one Mohanan, Inspector of Railway Protection Force, who is a graduate in English, and who knows Malayalam also, was engaged for assistance for translation work and for necessary explanation of everything in Malayalam. 3. The learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition ordering reinstatement of the respondent in service with full backwages and attendant benefits. Aggrieved by the above Judgment, the Railway administration have filed the above Writ Appeal. The argument advanced before the learned Single Judge was reiterated by counsel appearing on either side before us. Counsel for the respondent submitted that in view of the acquittal of the respondent for the offence of murder, it was not permissible for the department to hold an enquiry into the same allegations and that the respondent had been denied reasonable opportunity of defending at the enquiry. Counsel further submitted that the respondent was not given due opportunity to have the assistance of Mr. Gopalakrishna Pillai as his defence helper. According to counsel, both the enquiry authority and the appellate authority have ordered dismissal, when there is no evidence on record to prove the charge of murder. 4. Learned Single Judge held that the respondent was unable to choose two other helpers. Thus he was compelled to conduct the enquiry himself without possessing the requisite skills for doing so. According to counsel, both the enquiry authority and the appellate authority have ordered dismissal, when there is no evidence on record to prove the charge of murder. 4. Learned Single Judge held that the respondent was unable to choose two other helpers. Thus he was compelled to conduct the enquiry himself without possessing the requisite skills for doing so. Referring to sub-rule (5) of R.44 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, the learned Single Judge accepted as definite practice pleaded by the respondent and held that it is for the Department and the Enquiry Officer to have the officer relieved from duties for the purpose of the enquiry and that the enquiry officer, who have the obligation, to secure the presence of the helper, had not, admittedly fulfilled the obligation. As no steps were taken to secure the assistance of Mr. Gopalakrishna Pillai, whose nomination was accepted by the appellant, the learned Judge held that the enquiry was vitiated. The learned Judge, in regard to the incident of the respondent stabbing his colleague Gopalakrishnan, which resulted in his instantaneous death, held that the same is not based on evidence and that it is not permissible to re-evaluate or re-appreciate evidence led at the enquiry and come to a different conclusion, but it is permissible to consider whether the finding on the basis of which the delinquent has been dismissed from service is based on evidence. In other words, the learned Judge held that if there is one grain of evidence to support the impugned finding, the Court shall not interfere; but if there is no evidence at all, this Court may interfere in exercise of the jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. In view of his conclusion set out in the order, the learned Judge quashed the order of dismissal dated 11th April 1988 and ordered reinstatement of the respondent in service with all attendant benefits. 5. Mr. M. C. Cheriyan, learned counsel appearing for the Railways, submitted that the Judgment of the learned Single Judge is against law, facts and probabilities of the case and that the learned Judge went wrong in holding that the respondent was denied reasonable opportunity of defending at the enquiry. 5. Mr. M. C. Cheriyan, learned counsel appearing for the Railways, submitted that the Judgment of the learned Single Judge is against law, facts and probabilities of the case and that the learned Judge went wrong in holding that the respondent was denied reasonable opportunity of defending at the enquiry. Our attention was drawn to the statements in the counter and the exhibits to show that it is not due to any lapse of default on the part of the Enquiry Officer, but it is because the respondent did not want any defence helper to defend him in the enquiry that the respondent himself defended the enquiry and as agreed by him also. The relevant portion of the counter affidavit is reproduced herein: "Afterwards the enquiry officer has fixed the enquiry to 9th September 1987 and sent notice of the same to the petitioner and others concerned. A true copy of the said notice dated 2nd September 1987 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R-1 (e). It can be seen from Ext. R-l (e) that necessary arrangements were made for relief of the Defence of the petitioner also. However the enquiry could not be held, as the petitioner failed to turn out on the round of illness. Accordingly the enquiry had to be adjourned and it was later posted to 9th October 1987. However on that day the petitioner alone turned up, without his defence helper. He requested for adjournment of the enquiry, undertaking to bring the defence helper on the next day. This will be clear from the enquiry proceedings dated 9th October 1987, a true copy of which is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R-1 (f). Later the enquiry was fixed to be held on 22nd December 1987. On that day the petitioned submitted a letter dated 22nd December 1987 intimating that as his Defence Counsel is laid up from 17th December 1987 onwards and as he is unaware of any language other than Malayalam, it is necessary that his defence helper will have to attend the enquiry or to appoint an officer who knows Malayalam, as Enquiry Officer. A photostat copy of the said letter dated 22nd December 1987 (written in Malayalam) is produced herewith and marked as Ext. R-l (g). A photostat copy of the said letter dated 22nd December 1987 (written in Malayalam) is produced herewith and marked as Ext. R-l (g). In this connection it is pertinent to note that the petitioner who was in Tamil Nadu areas for more than 5 years and who is a person passed 8th Standard, has sent letter in Malayalam for the first time. It can be seen for Ext. R-1 (g) that the only objection of the petitioner, regarding the language is that it should be in a language which he or his defence counsel, could handle. In this connection it is submitted that normally the defence counsel is to be an employee in the same division of the Railway where the enquiry is held. This is because, otherwise the disciplinary authority and other divisional authorities, will not be readily in a position to ensure the relief of the person concerned (Defence Counsel), as also arrange travel facilities. However, the Defence Counsel suggested by the petitioner (Sri Gopala-Jsrishna Pillai) was an employee in the Trivandrum Division, while the delinquent and the enquiry proceedings were 111 Palghat Division. Over and above this, there was also the impediment regarding illness and sick leave, etc., of the said defence counsel (Sri Gopalakrishna Pillai). Under the above circumstances, the petitioner was asked to nominate any defence helper from Palghat Division. This would be clear from letter dated 6ih January 1988, a true copy of which is produced herewith and marked as Ext. R-1 (h). However the petitioner did not arrange any other defence helper. Therefore a further letter dated 16th January 1988 was issued to the petitioner requesting him to nominate3 defence helpers who knows English and Malayalam and arrange the defence helpers to attend the enquiry which was fixed to 19th January 1988. A true copy of the said letter dated 16th January 1988 is produced herewith and marked as Ext. R-1 (i). As noticed in Ext. R-l (i) letter, the enquiry was conducted on 19th January 1988. Even though the petitioner had not brought any defence helper on that day, he agreed to the enquiry being proceeded with, saying that he will defend the case himself. Accordingly one Mr. O. P. Mohanan, Inspector, Railway Protection Force (he is a graduate in English and who knows Malayalam also), was also taken for assistance for translation work and for necessary explanation of everything in Malayalam. Accordingly one Mr. O. P. Mohanan, Inspector, Railway Protection Force (he is a graduate in English and who knows Malayalam also), was also taken for assistance for translation work and for necessary explanation of everything in Malayalam. At the end of every day's proceedings, a statement regarding the said help rendered by Sri Mohanan in the enquiry, has been recorded, and the petitioner, the concerned witnesses and the enquiry officer, used to put the signature at the end of the examination of each witness as also in each page of the enquiry proceedings. All these would be self evident from the proceedings marked as Exhibit P-10." 6. We are of the view that the learned Judge has ignored the above facts and not adverted to the same at all. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that it is the duty of the railways and that they have the binding obligation to procure the presence of the defence helper as hi nomination was initially accepted by the railways. We are of the view that there is no such binding obligation on the part of the appellant, In this connection it may be noted that as per the rules, the respondent is to nominate another railway employee in the same division as defence helper. Even though the respondent has nominated one from another division, the appellant had accepted it and acted upon it without standing on technicalities. However, when it was later found difficult to procure his presence, the respondent had been intimated of it early enough. In this connection, our attention was drawn to Ext. R-1 (f) wherein the respondent has stated in his deposition at the enquiry proceedings on 9th October 1987 as follows: "Q. 1. Do you accept the charge? A. No. I deny the charge. Q. 2. Do you want any defence helper? A. Yes. ASI/KTY M. N. Gopalakrishna Pillai is defending my case. Q.3. Do you have any defence witnesses? A. I have no defence witnesses. Q.4. Shall we commence the enquiry? A. This day my defence helper Sri Gopalakrishna Pillai has absented and hence I request a new date may kindly be given and I will bring him to defend my case (Sd.) (Sd.) 9-10-1987 9-10-1987, E.O./ASG/ED. K. Sreedharan" problem also as raised by the respondent. Again under Ext. R-1 (i) dated 16th January 1988 he was intimated that his defence helper Mr. K. Sreedharan" problem also as raised by the respondent. Again under Ext. R-1 (i) dated 16th January 1988 he was intimated that his defence helper Mr. Gopalakrishna Pillai could not be spared as advised in the letter dated 13th January 1988 and that if no nomination is made, the enquiry will be proceeded with ex parte. He was also informed that the enquiry was fixed on 19th January 1988. As already noticed, the respondent was not serious about himself being defended by a defence helper in the enquiry and finally he has stated that he himself will defend in the enquiry and no defence helper is necessary. There was no protest or dissent from the petitioner and he had cooperated in the enquiry on all the four days of enquiry, on 19th January 1988, 20th January 1988, 8th February 1988 and 26th February 1988. Thus, a person who did not actually want himself to be defended by a defence helper, who failed to procure the presence of the defence helper even after undertaking to bring him, who has refused to nominate other defence helpers, and was prepared to go on with the enquiry without any defence helper, can have no grievance regarding violation of principles of natural justice, on account of absence of defence helper in the enquiry. We are of the view that the learned Single Judge was not correct in holding that there was violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the enquiry through an enquiry officer, who did not know Malayalam, which is the language of the witnesses and the respondent. As already noticed, the services of a graduate officer was also made available throughout the enquiry and he has been translating the Malayalam depositions, etc. to English and vice versa. Therefore, we are unable to countenance the plea raised by counsel for the respondent that the enquiry was vitiated because the enquiry officer was not a person knowing the language of the witnesses and the respondent 7. We are also unable to appreciate the finding of the learned Judge that after accepting the nomination of the defence helper as suggested by the respondent, it can never be altered and that the rules regarding nomination of defence helper is only recommendatory and not mandatory. The nomination of Mr. Gopalakrishna Pillai was accepted and acted upon and was never rejected or refused by the enquiry officer. The nomination of Mr. Gopalakrishna Pillai was accepted and acted upon and was never rejected or refused by the enquiry officer. On the other hand, even more than three months prior to the actual enquiry the respondent was intimated of the difficulty in procuring the presence of the nominated defence helper Sri Gopalakrishna Pillai departmentally, when the respondent undertook to bring the defence helper himself. However, as the respondent failed to bring Sri Gopalakrishna Pillai even after that, to give him facility for being defended by a defence helper he was given freedom to nominate others. Even that was not done by the respondent. 8. The finding of the learned Single Judge that there is no evidence in the enquiry to support the finding of the enquiry officer that the respondent has committed the murder in question was challenged by the learned counsel for the railways in the following manner: "In this connection it is pertinent to note that even the petitioner has no such case anywhere. In fact his case has been that the disciplinary authorities went wrong in placing reliance on the evidence of Chamy (Chamuny) and Krishnan, as given in the Enquiry because of the adverse comments about their evidence in the Criminal Appeal. Thus, he has no case of lack of evidence." In this context, we may usefully refer to Ext. P-1 appeal with particular reference to ground Nos. 4 and 5 which reads thus: "4. The key witness on whose evidence the findings of guilt is entered, is Chammy, whose conduct was commented by the High Court (please see para 5 of the High Court Judgment). His case at the first instance i.e., before the criminal court was that the appellant confessed before him about the alleged stabbing. At the time he had no case that he has interfered in the fighting between the appellant and the deceased and separated them immediately before the stabbing. If it were true, he would have told the same before the investigating agency. At the time he had no case that he has interfered in the fighting between the appellant and the deceased and separated them immediately before the stabbing. If it were true, he would have told the same before the investigating agency. Naturally the appellants name would have found a place in the P.F.I, statement which was filed after deliberation among the officers of the R.P.F. In view of his admission that he has nothing more to say before the enquiry officer than what he has stated before court, the enquiry officer ought have discarded those portion, especially when in the statement of allegation furnished to this appellant the only point sought to be proved by Sree Chammi is the extra judicial confession. The enquiry officer ought have considered this portion of evidence vis-a-vis the statement of allegation. At least the enquiry officer ought to have called Mr. Chammi to explain why such an important aspect he failed to depose before court or to anybody before the enquiry. This aspect was lost sight of by the disciplinary authority. 5. Another witness whose evidence is believed by the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority is one Krishnan. Both these witnesses are having a case that they are not having anything more than what they have stated before the police and court when matters were fresh in memory. This have also admitted that they were taken by Crime Branch and were with for says and briefal with their statement. But before police and court Mr. Krishnan had no case that he was attracted to the scene of occurrence by the quarrelling sound and witnessed the incident along with a crowd. He could not remember what transpired about a decade back. His conduct was commented adversely and found unreliable by the Hon'ble court. This aspect was lightly brushed aside by the enquiry officer and disciplinary authority and the same evidence which was found unreliable by a competent court was found to be thoroughly reliable and trustworthy. The points raised against his evidence was not considered by the officers in the proper perspection." (Typed as seen in the Original). We are of the view that the learned Judge has rendered the finding without adverting to the whole evidence of Chamuny and Krishnan. The points raised against his evidence was not considered by the officers in the proper perspection." (Typed as seen in the Original). We are of the view that the learned Judge has rendered the finding without adverting to the whole evidence of Chamuny and Krishnan. It can be seen that in the initial statement in the enquiry itself Krishnan has stated as follows: "I am working as R.M.S. Mail man now. During April 1978 I was working as extra departmental personal under Railway Mail Service, Shoranur. During that period the delinquent was working at Shoranur in R.P.R. Department. During April 1978 while I was on day duty I heard (unable to remember the date) the delinquent was also on duty I heard quarrelling noise between the delinquent and another R.P.F. man. It was happened near the R.P.F. office. Immediately I rushed to the place and saw the delinquent fighting another R.P.F. Apart from me a crowd gathered at the spot. Due to the fight the other R.P.F. man was found dead and the delinquent was alive. Then I left the place to my workspot." However, the learned Single Judge has proceeded as though Krishnan has said only the following: "I heard quarrelling noise between the delinquent and another R.P.F. man." The learned Judge has omitted to advert to the material portion in the evidence of Krishnan. Likewise, the learned Single Judge has quoted the evidence of Chamuny also imperfectly. In the initial statement before the enquiry officer itself Chamuny has stated as follows: "I am working as ASIPF/SIB/ERS for the last 2 months and I got 32 years of service in R.P.F. During 1978 1 was S.R.K. at S.R.R. and I have worked at Shoranur about 6 years. On 11th April 1978 I was on 8.00 to 16.00 hrs. duty at SRR/POST as seal check. After my duty I went outside along with P. V. Madhavan RK/SRR and Ganesan, R.K./S.R.R., for private work and returned S.R.R. Postal about 20.30 hrs. While returning after meals from V.V.R.R. I saw the delinquent and Gopalakrishnan, R.K. fighting each other in front of S.R.R./Post. While I was conversing with the T. V. Madhavan and proceeding to my room, the delinquent rashed towards and stated that he has stabbed R. K Gopalakrishnan. After informing me the delinquent dashed towards the yard. While returning after meals from V.V.R.R. I saw the delinquent and Gopalakrishnan, R.K. fighting each other in front of S.R.R./Post. While I was conversing with the T. V. Madhavan and proceeding to my room, the delinquent rashed towards and stated that he has stabbed R. K Gopalakrishnan. After informing me the delinquent dashed towards the yard. Immediately myself and Madhavan rushed back to S.R.R. Post and saw Gopalakrishnan in pool of blood. There was blood on the steps of the post where Gopalakrishnan was lying. I rushed to the quarters of A.S.I.P.F. Kuttikrishnan and brought him to the post along with me to take further action in this regard. The A.S.I.P.F. give all concerned message including the Railway Police. Then I perform 00.00 to 8.00 hrs. duty on 12th April 1978. After four or five days the crime Brach/C.I.P./Palghat came to S.R.R. and recorded my statement. I have also given evidence in the court in connection with the case.(Sd.) Chamunni." As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Single Judge has culled out isolated sentences here and there from the statements of Krishnan and Chamuny and commented on it without going through the entire statement. The statement of Chamuny shows that he has seen the fighting and he has separated them, but still both the deceased and the respondent were fighting, that immediately after the incident the respondent stated to him that he stabbed Gopalakrishnan. It is also his evidence that he went to the spot and found Gopalakrishnan in a pool of blood. The statement of Chamunni has been correctly appreciated and relied on by the disciplinary authority. It may also be noted that even if there is only a statement in the form of confession, there is no bar in acting upon it in a departmental enquiry and that the technical rule of evidence in a court of law, more so in a criminal case, is not applicable to departmental enquiry. Both Krishnan and Chamuny have spoken about the events which immediately preceded the stabbing incident as spoken to by the delinquent as also about what they have seen immediately on going to the scene. Like wise, it is seen from the evidence of Krishnan that due to the fight the other R.P.F. man was found dead and the delinquent was alive. Like wise, it is seen from the evidence of Krishnan that due to the fight the other R.P.F. man was found dead and the delinquent was alive. It is also not the case of the respondent that there is any enmity between him and the witnesses or any other like factors inducing them to give evidence against him. We are of the view that there are corroborating circumstances. It is also not the case of the respondent that the Enquiry Officer was biased against him and was trying to create evidence against him as held by the learned Single Judge. The grievance of the appellant that the learned Single Judge has also not referred to the contentions of the appellant as contained in their counter affidavit is correct since a reading of the Judgment will go to show that the learned Judge has not adverted to the contentions of the appellant as contained in their counter affidavit. Our attention was also drawn to the Government of India instructions with regard to R.14 (8) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules from Swamy's compilation wherein it is stated as follows: "The rules do not vest any discretion in the disciplinary authority in regard to the nomination of a Government servant to present the case of the delinquent official. However, if for any compelling reasons it is not practicable for the Controlling Authority of the assisting Government servant to relieve him without undue delay or without serious detriment to the public interest to present the case of the delinquent official, he should, inform the Inquiry Officer about it with reasons, for being communicated to the accused official, and the Government servant nominated to assist the accused well in time. In that case the accused official could choose any other Government servant to assist him in the presentation of his case before the Inquiry Officer. If has been held by the Ministries of Law and Home Affairs that refusal by superior officer to grant permission to nominated Government servant on reasonable grounds would not amount to denying the right of representation under C.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules, as it would be open to the delinquent official to nominate another Government servant." The above clarification is seen issued in D. G., P and T., letter No. 6/4/66-Disc., dated 6th August 1966 and letter No. 10/1/68-Disc., dated the 23rd July 1,969. The correct position has been further explained that no permission is needed by the accused Government servant ,to secure the assistance of any other Government servant. The latter also is not required to take the permission for assisting the accused Government servant. It will, however, be necessary for him to obtain permission of his Controlling Authority to absent himself from office in order to assist the accused Government servant during the enquiry. We are also unable to countenance the argument of the learned Counsel for the respondent that the acquittal in the Criminal case by a Division Bench of this Court by giving the benefit of doubt will disentitle the appellant from initiating disciplinary proceedings against the respondent regarding his conduct in connection with the incident in question. It is settled by a catena of decisions of this Court and also of the Supreme Court that the standard of evidence required in a criminal case and that required in a disciplinary enquiry are entirely different. The above is also the submission of the learned counsel for the Railways. This contention is also supported by the following decisions: (1) Spadigam v. State of Kerala (1970) 1 LL.J. 718, (2) C. L. Subramaniam v. Collector of Customs A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2178 (3) T. F. Gowda v. State of Mysore (1975) II LL.J. 2178, (4) K. Babu v. Union Bank of India 1986 K.L.J. 462, (5) Jayardm Panda v. D. F. Raiyani (1990) II LL.J. 186, (6) Nelson Motis v. Union of India J.T. 1992 (2) LL.J. 186 and (7) Chief Regional Manager, S. B. I. v. S. Easwara Rao (1995) II LL.J. 874. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent cited a Division Bench Judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in Ravuru Babu Rao v. General Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Madras 1997 (2) S.L.R. 274. In that case, proceedings were taken against the workman both before the Criminal court as well as before the Civil Court. The Criminal case before the Principal Special Judge and the appeal before the High Court were dismissed on merits. Challenging the Judgment of the High Court a further appeal was preferred before the Supreme Court and the same was also dismissed. In the meanwhile, the department proceeded with disciplinary proceedings by appointing an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges levelled against the delinquent employee. Challenging the Judgment of the High Court a further appeal was preferred before the Supreme Court and the same was also dismissed. In the meanwhile, the department proceeded with disciplinary proceedings by appointing an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges levelled against the delinquent employee. That was challenged in a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court stayed the enquiry pending the writ petition. The department had also filed two suits before the Subordinate Judge's Court, which were also dismissed on merits. Further appeals to the High Court and also before the Supreme Court were dismissed. In that case it was contended that when there is an order of acquittal in a criminal case for the same charges by a competent criminal court, it is not proper for the department to enquire into the same charges once again. However, the High Court passed an order in the writ petition filed by the workman rejecting the contention of the workman on the ground that the objects to launch, criminal proceedings and to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the same employee are different. Challenging the said finding, a writ appeal was preferred by the workman before the Division Bench. It was contended by the workman before the Division Bench that further enquiry into the same issue decided by a competent Criminal Court amounts to harassing him. When there is an order of acquittal from the charge which was common in the criminal case and also before the civil court, it was contended that it was not fair to proceed with the enquiry. To support the contentions, counsel for the workman placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in R. P. Kapur v. Union of India AIR. To support the contentions, counsel for the workman placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in R. P. Kapur v. Union of India AIR. 1964 SC 787 wherein it was observed that: "If the trial of the criminal charge results in conviction, disciplinary proceedings are bound to follow against the public servant so convicted, even in case of acquittal, proceedings may follow where the acquittal is other than honourable." Counsel for the department submitted that the object before the Criminal Court, case before the Civil Court and point raised before the learned Single Judge are altogether different, and all the issues in the above case were dealt with separately and that the charge framed against the workman in the departmental enquiry was to know how far the presence of the workman in the department is advisable. Therefore, the learned counsel for the department contended that there is no bar to initiate proceedings by different agencies for similar charge. The learned Judges of the Division Bench held that the object of holding departmental enquiry Is not really to punish the guilty, but to keep the administrative machinery unsullied by getting rid of bad elements. The interest of administration demands that undesirable elements are thrown out and any misdemeanour is enquired into promptly. In holding the departmental enquiry, the interest of the delinquent officer also lies in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. If he is not guilty of the charges, his honour should be vindicated at the earliest possible moment and if he is guilty, he should be dealt with promptly according to law. Thus, it was held that there is no bar to initiate both the proceedings. 10. The Supreme Court in Corporation of Nagpur v. Ramachdndra G. Madak A.I.R. 1984 SC 626 = 1981 (1) S.L.R. 274 (SC) in identical circumstances held thus: "The question whether or not the "departmental inquiry pending against the employee involved in the criminal case should be continued even after his acquittal in criminal cases is a matter which is to be decided by the department 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 is not expedient to continue a departmental inquiry on the very same charges or grounds of evidence. Normally where the accused is ; acquitted honourably and completely exonerated of the charges, it is not expedient to continue a departmental inquiry on the very same charges or grounds of evidence. However, merely because the accused is acquitted, the power of the authority to continue the departmental inquiry is not taken away nor its discretion in any way fettered." 11. We have already noticed that a Division Bench of this Court allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence awarded to the respondent herein and ordered acquittal by giving the benefit of doubt to the accused. The Bench has further observed that it has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of the offence for which he has been convicted. During the pendency of the Criminal appeal before this Court, action was taken to terminate the services of the respondent on the basis of his conviction and sentence by the Sessions Court. Consequent upon the acquittal, the respondent was reinstated in service, but was kept under suspension pending contemplated disciplinary enquiry against him. It is in this background the respondent filed O.P. 3439 of 1980 and a Division Bench of this Court, by Judgment dated 1st July, 1986 had observed that it is not possible to take the view that mere acquittal of the respondent in a criminal case precludes disciplinary enquiry being initiated against him in respect of his conduct which was the subject - matter of the criminal case. In contemplation of disciplinary proceedings the authorities have the power to keep the Government servant under suspension. Hence, the Bench was not in favour of accepting the contention of the respondent herein that the authorities had no competence to pass the order impugned therein (Ext. P-9 in O.P. 3439 of 1980), keeping the petitioner under suspension. In this case, the department, after considering the pros and cons of the proceedings, have decided to proceed against the respondent herein depart-mentally, which, in our opinion, the department is entitled to take. The Judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court is distinguishable on facts. It is true that the issues involved in the departmental enquiry and in the criminal case are one and the same. The Judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court is distinguishable on facts. It is true that the issues involved in the departmental enquiry and in the criminal case are one and the same. In the above case, in addition to the criminal and departmental proceedings, civil proceedings were also initiated against the workman, which also ended in dismissal against the Government. In all the three proceedings, the documents relied upon were one and the same. Since there was an order of acquittal by the Criminal Court and an order or dismissal of the suit on merits, by a Civil Court, in favour of the workman, the Division Bench was of the opinion that the workman was not liable to face department as it was not proper to once again drive the workman to face the departmental enquiry. The Bench was of the view that it was not fair on the part of the authorities to resort to departmental enquiry, having regard to the findings of the Courts constituted under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Code of Civil Procedure. It was observed further that it was open for the department to take a decision on the continuance of the workman or otherwise, but not on the basis of the charge referred to against the workman in the said case. 12. This Court and the Supreme Court have held in a catena of decisions that the object of holding departmental enquiry is not really to punish the guilty, but to keep the administrative machinery unsullied by getting rid of bad elements, and that the departmental proceedings are initiated in the interest of the administration as also in the interest of the delinquent officers. Thus, we are of the view that there is no bar in initiating departmental proceedings after the acquittal of the delinquent employee in criminal proceedings. 13. In this case, the Enquiry Officer has found the respondent to be guilty of the charges levelled against him. The appellant, as the disciplinary authority, has gone through the entire proceedings and has issued Ext. P-10 penalty advise dismissing the respondent from service. The speaking order attached to this penalty advice will indicate the legality and justifiability of the said penalty advice. The appeal filed by the respondent against the said penalty advice has been considered by the management and Ext. P-10 penalty advise dismissing the respondent from service. The speaking order attached to this penalty advice will indicate the legality and justifiability of the said penalty advice. The appeal filed by the respondent against the said penalty advice has been considered by the management and Ext. P-12 order has been passed rejecting the same. Therefore, we are of the view that there is no illegality or impropriety in Exts. P-10 and P-12 orders thus passed. We have, in the earlier part of our Judgment, pointed out the defects in the Judgment of the learned Single Judge with reference to the pleadings, documents and evidence on record. We are of the view that the grounds raised by the respondent in the writ petition as well as before us are unsustainable. The writ appeal is, therefore, allowed and the Judgment of the learned Single Judge in O.P. No. 9478 of 1988 is set aside. However there will be no order as to costs.