Judgment :- The petitioner prays for the issue of Writ of certioranfied Mandamus calling for the records of the 3rd respondent in (1) Letter No. 1973/Admn/II A2/F-Dp 971 dated 26.11.1997 (2) Memo No. SE/S/Admn. 1/C7/F/DP (O) — MISC/880/85 dated 12.11.1985 and the second respondent in (3) Memo No. RCE/T/Admn.B/DP/Cont. 180 dated 5.4.1986, quash the same and reinstate the petitioner in service with consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Helper in the respondent Electricity Board and subsequently as Assistant on 22.12.1981. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 5.3.1985 as enquiry into grave charges of misappropriation of Boards money was contemplated. Charges were framed against the petitioner, an enquiry officer was appointed, the enquiry was completed after affording opportunity to the petitioner. The report of the enquiry officer was also communicated to the petitioner and the petitioner was called upon to state his objection. 3. After considering the objections and explanation submitted by the petitioner, the penalty of dismissal from service was imposed on 12.11.1985. The order of dismissal was also confirmed by the Appellate Authority by proceedings dated 19.11.1985. The said order of dismissal had not been challenged all these years and it has been allowed to become final. 4. According to the petitioner, in respect of same allegation of misappropriation, a criminal case was lodged and he was prosecuted for offences under Sections 409 and 477-A, I.P.C. The Judicial Magistrate, Karur by Judgment dated 19.9.1997 in C.C. No. 1039/90 acquitted the petitioner under Section 248(1), Cr.P.C. holding that the charges were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. 5. After acquittal, the petitioner submitted his representation on 15.10.1997 seeking for reinstatement in service, the 3rd respondent by proceedings dated 26.11.1997 declined to reinstate the petitioner on the basis of acquittal and while intimating that the order of dismissal in so far as the petitioner is concerned has reached finality as early as 19.11.1985. The petitioner preferred an appeal and the same has also been rejected. Hence the present Writ Petition. 6. Heard Mr. M. Ravi for the Writ Petitioner. 7. The only point that has been raised is that consequent to the acquittal by the Criminal Court, the order of dismissal should have been set aside and he should have been reinstated into service. 8. Hence the present Writ Petition. 6. Heard Mr. M. Ravi for the Writ Petitioner. 7. The only point that has been raised is that consequent to the acquittal by the Criminal Court, the order of dismissal should have been set aside and he should have been reinstated into service. 8. In the present case, as already pointed out after following the procedure, the Writ Petitioner was dismissed from service on 12.11.1985 and the same has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority on 5.4.1986. Thereafter, after a lapse of 11 years in the Criminal prosecution, the petitioner had been given the benefit of doubt and acquitted from the criminal charge by the judicial magistrate on 19.9.1997. The petitioners request has been rejected on 26.11.1997. Even thereafter, the petitioner filed the Writ Petition only on 15.11.1999 after a lapse of two years. 9. It is fairly admitted that the petitioner had not been dismissed consequent to conviction. But, on the other hand, definite charges were framed against the petitioner. In a duly constituted domestic enquiry, the charges were substantiated and after following the procedure, the penalty of dismissal was imposed. On Appeal, the order of dismissal was confirmed and it had been allowed to become final. After 11 years consequent to the acquittal by the Criminal Court in respect of the Criminal charges, the petitioner seeks for reinstatement. 10. Such a contention cannot be entertained. It is well settled that there could be simultaneous proceedings both departmental as well as criminal prosecution. It is not as if the petitioner had moved the appropriate authority or the Court to stay the departmental proceedings, pending criminal case. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to sustain the plea that the charges are one and the same. The departmental proceedings were proceeded and the petitioner had been dismissed from service. It is not as if the entire departmental proceeding is barred. When once the disciplinary proceeding is completed and the penalty of dismissal had been imposed and the said proceeding having been allowed to become final, it is not open to the petitioner to approach this Court for a mandamus to reinstate the petitioner merely because after a lapse of a decade the Criminal Court had given the benefit of doubt and discharged the petitioner. 12. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admits that the disciplinary proceedings had not been challenged for more than a decade and it was allowed to become final. Based upon the acquittal by Criminal Court, the earlier proceedings of dismissal which had reached finality cannot be reopened nor the petitioner could seek for reinstatement. When once the order of dismissal had become final, it is not open to the petitioner to approach this. Court even if he had been acquitted by the Criminal Court by giving the benefit of doubt. 13. In the circumstances, this Court find; that no interference is called for in this Writ Petition. Consequently, the Writ Petition and the Writ Misc. Petition are dismissed.