Judgment S.J.Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The petitioner was in custody in connection with a criminal case being G.R. No. 8231/92 under Secs. 363, 366, 376 and 376/34, I.P.C. for committing rape on one victim Anna Vengra after kidnapping her. The date of occurrence was shown to be 4th of July, 1992 at Patna Junction, where certain constable including petitioner alleged to have been approached the victim at about 11.30 p.m. 2. In view of the fact that the petitioner was taken in custody, he was placed under suspension and proceeded in departmental proceeding. Apart from the allegation of committing rape on victim Anna Vengra, three other allegations relating to dereliction of duty, unauthorized absence from duty etc. were levelled. 3. It appears that the petitioner did not take part in the departmental proceeding, but he was acquitted in the criminal case being Sessions Trial No. 95.1/92 by judgment dated 15th January, 1994, passed by the learned Asstt. Sessions Judge VIth, Patna. However, in the departmental proceeding, the charges having found to be proved, on the basis of finding of Inquiry Officer, the petitioner was dismissed from service, vide Memo No. 615 dated 5th December, 1994. The appeal was also rejected, vide order dated 28th June, 1995. Subsequently, no decision in the revision application having taken, the present writ petition has been preferred. 4. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the inquiry was conducted without giving proper opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner having acquitted in the criminal proceeding for same set of allegation, the respondents should not have dismissed the petitioner for such charge. This apart, the Counsel for the petitioner also alleged infirmities in the proceeding on the ground that error of record committed by the Inquiry Officer in giving finding while discussing one or other evidence and that the allegation cannot be held to be proved in absence of corroboration of the same by the victim girl and cross-examination of her by petitioner, she having not examined. 5. Admittedly, three of the charges i.e. charge Nos. 1, 2 and 3 which include unauthorized absence from duty, insubordination etc., were not the charge in the criminal proceeding. However, the grave charge relating to committing rape was the charge in the criminal proceeding. 6. 5. Admittedly, three of the charges i.e. charge Nos. 1, 2 and 3 which include unauthorized absence from duty, insubordination etc., were not the charge in the criminal proceeding. However, the grave charge relating to committing rape was the charge in the criminal proceeding. 6. In view of the fact that the petitioner was not held to be guilty by criminal Court, as the prosecution failed to prove the same and merely one witness was produced but become hostile and other two witnesses being formal, this Court directed the Counsel for the State to produce the relevant file relating to departmental inquiry. 7. From the relevant file, as also inquiry report, I find that the petitioner was given opportunity in the departmental proceeding, but at the initial stage, refused to take part. This has also been discussed by the Inquiry Officer while submitted report on 17th January, 1994. Statement of prosecution witnesses were taken, discussed and relied and the Inquiry Officer held the grave charge proved. However, the victim girl having not examined, it appears that disciplinary authority remitted the matter for further inquiry, after examining the victim girl and the informant (her brother). At the time of further inquiry, the petitioner was again given opportunity, and the Inquiry Officer also took him to the village of victim girl, but the whereabouts of the girl having not known, she was not examined. The Inquiry Officer submitted supplementary report on 24th June, 1994 and gave further reason and cited evidence to hold all the charges proved. It is only thereafter, on notice and reply from petitioner, the impugned order of dismissal was passed on 5th December, 1994. 8. From the file, as also the inquiry report, I find that earlier fact finding inquiry was made and report submitted by one or other officer. A number of Police Officials who were made prosecution witnesses, made specific statement in support of the charge, against the petitioner, including the officer, before whom the victim girl gave her statement and in presence of whom the petitioner was recognized by the victim girl. 9. Ext. 7 is another report by another officer, taken into consideration by the Inquiry Officer, which shows that the petitioner also accepted the guilt before the said officer. 9. Ext. 7 is another report by another officer, taken into consideration by the Inquiry Officer, which shows that the petitioner also accepted the guilt before the said officer. A number of witnesses, like statement of witnesses, taken into consideration to give finding against, the petitioner and from plain reading of the inquiry report and the supplementary report, it cannot be held to be perverse. 10. In the aforesaid background, the petitioner having found guilty by Inquiry Officer, on appreciation of evidence, the disciplinary authority having agreed with the same, I find no reason to interfere with the order of dismissal. 11. In absence of witnesses/evidences, if the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal proceeding, he cannot derive any benefit of the same in the departmental proceeding, wherein the named witnesses appeared and supported the case of prosecution. 12. There being no merit, the writ petition is dismissed.