Judgment M.Y.Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the award dated 30.6.98 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial No. 2, Dhanbad in Reference case No. 77/94 published in 4/98 the gazette by notification dated 10.7.98 whereby the petitioner-management has been directed to reinstate the workman in service with the benefit of continuation in service for the purpose of granting increment and other benefits. 2. It appears that the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of powers conferred on them under section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute to the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad for adjudication : "Whether the action of the management of United Commercial Bank, Patna in dismissing Shri Shambhu Sharan Singh, clerk-cum- typist from service with effect from 9.8.86 is justified? If not, what relief is the workman entitled to." 3. The case of the workman is that he was appointed as clerk-cum-typist in the Bank on being selected in an interview in the year, 1978 and joined at Bermo Branch of the Bank in the District of Giridih in October, 1978. As he was working in the said Branch a customer, namely, Meghraj Singh developed a grudge against him and came to Bermo Branch on 26.4.84 and deposited a sum of Rs.1000/- in his account and also got the entries in his pass book. Subsequently the said customer, Meghraj Singh filed a complaint with the Manager of the Bank in writing against withdrawal of Rs.5000/- from his account and also lodged a F.I.R. with Bermo police station alleging fraudulent withdrawal of amount from his account, On complaint being lodged by Meghraj Singh the management issued a charge sheet to the workman and also placed him under suspension on 12.6.84. The management also prepared a supplementary chargesheet and, thereafter, lodged FIR to the police station on 2.1.85. The workman submitted his reply to the chargesheet denying the aliegation levelled therein. While he was under suspension two criminal cases/trials started against him in the court of Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat. The management also initiated a departmental inquiry against the workman for the same charges. The workman submitted his reply to the chargesheet denying the aliegation levelled therein. While he was under suspension two criminal cases/trials started against him in the court of Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat. The management also initiated a departmental inquiry against the workman for the same charges. Inquiry officer was appointed and the workman was directed to appear before him but the workman opposed holding of the departmental inquiry by raising a preliminary objection and requested the Inquiry Officer to keep the domestic inquiry in abeyance pending conclusion of the criminal trials. The said request was refused by the Inquiry Officer and the enquiry proceeded ex parte against the workman. The Inquiry Officer subsequently submitted his inquiry report and found the workman guilty of the charges. Accordingly, the management issued a letter dated 28.6.86 to the workman proposing punishment of dismissal from service. The said proposal of punishment was vehementally opposed by the workman but despite that the Divisional Manager of the Bank passed final order of dismissal from service with effect from 9.8.86 against the workman. Further case of the workman is that the criminal cases lodged against him were concluded and he was not found guilty and was acquitted of the charges by the judgment dated 9.3.89 and 31.5.89 respectively. Subsequent to the judgment the workman submitted a representation to the concerned respondents in November, 1989 praying for his reinstatement in service of the Bank. The Zonal Manager of the Bank at Patna, finally informed the workman on 28.1.92 that the decision of dismissal would stand. Ultimately the aforesaid industrial dispute was raised before the Assistant Labour Commissioner on 4.8.93 who held conciliation proceeding on different dates and finally submitted his failure report to the Govt. which resulted in the reference of the dispute to the tribunal. 4. Ultimately the aforesaid industrial dispute was raised before the Assistant Labour Commissioner on 4.8.93 who held conciliation proceeding on different dates and finally submitted his failure report to the Govt. which resulted in the reference of the dispute to the tribunal. 4. The case of the management on the other hand is that criminal cases against the workman were started on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by Meghraj Singh and Genda Lal and the management brought those facts to the notice of the police on receiving the complaint from Meghraj Singh and Gendalal but at the same time the claim of the management is that the charges in the criminal trials and in the departmental proceeding being not identical, there was no scope to stay the departmental proceeding pending disposal of the criminal trials as alleged and claimed by the workman by way of preliminary objection. The management has also challenged the satisfactory service of the concerned workman and has claimed that on several occasions the action and activities of the concerned workman were found to be against the interest of the Bank. It is stated by the management that inspite of the opportunity given to the workman he did not participate in the departmental proceeding and, as such, the same was decided ex parte. Further case of the management is that originally the Manager of the Divisional office, Sri A. K. Chatterjee was appointed as Disciplinary authority and as he was on sick leave from 10.2.96 and as there was no likelihood of his immediate return to duty, the next higher authority to the Disciplinary authority i.e. the Divisional Manager, became the Disciplinary authority and the next higher authority became the appellate authority. The Divisional Manager in his capacity as Disciplinary authority and not as appellate authority, rightly directed the concerned workman to show cause against the proposal of dismissal from service. 5. Both the management and the concerned workman adduced oral as well as documentary evidences in support of their respective cases before the Tribunal. The tribunal, after considering the entire facts of the case and the evidences brought on record came to the conclusion that the order of dismissal passed by the management against the concerned workman was not justified. 5. Both the management and the concerned workman adduced oral as well as documentary evidences in support of their respective cases before the Tribunal. The tribunal, after considering the entire facts of the case and the evidences brought on record came to the conclusion that the order of dismissal passed by the management against the concerned workman was not justified. The tribunal therefore, directed the management to reinstate the concerned workman in service with the benefit of continuation of service and all other benefits but without the backwages. 6. Mr. P.K. Sinha, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the management assailed the impugned award as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that the tribunal passed the impugned award of reinstatement mainly on the ground of acquittal of the concerned workman in the criminal cases based upon identical facts and also on the ground that the order of punishment was bad for the reason that the same was passed by the appellate authority assuming the role of Disciplinary authority. Learned counsel submitted that initiation of criminal case cannot and shall not be a bar to the initiation of the departmental proceeding against a delinquent employee in respect of the same facts and acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically divest the jurisdiction of the Disciplinary authority to initiate or continue with the departmental proceeding. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned award passed by the tribunal is quite illegal, arbitrary and not based upon correct appreciation of facts and evidences available on record. Learned counsel then submitted that the tribunal took no cognizance of the fact that the workman in the departmental proceeding has confessed his guilt having deposited the alleged sum of Rs. 5000/- in the S.B. account of the customer, Meghraj Singh. Sri Sinha further submitted that the tribunal failed to appreciate that there was inordinate delay by the workman in filing the case before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner following his dismissal from service. Learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1992 (4) SCC 711 and 1999 (3) SCC 679 . 7. On the other hand, Mr. A.K.Sinha, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the workman firstly contended that the tribunal has passed the award after careful consideration of the entire facts and evidences and held that the order of dismissal against the workman is not justified. 7. On the other hand, Mr. A.K.Sinha, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the workman firstly contended that the tribunal has passed the award after careful consideration of the entire facts and evidences and held that the order of dismissal against the workman is not justified. According to learned counsel, there is no law point involved in the writ application filed by the management and, therefore, this Court, exercising writ jurisdiction, should not re-appreciate the entire evidences. Learned counsel submitted that no serious illegality or perversity has been shown by the management and, therefore, this court is not entitled to exercise powers of the tribunal by substituting the award in place of one by the tribunal. In this connection learned counsel has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Singh Rathore V/s. B.A.B. Ltd. reported in AIR 1984 SC 976 and a Bench decision of this court in the case of Management of West Bokaro Colliery V/s. Presiding Officer and ors. reported in 1997 (2) PLJR 275 . Mr. Sinha further contended that at the very initial stage when the workman was informed about the initiation of the departmental proceeding, he raised objection mainly on the ground of pendency of the criminal cases and prayed for the stay of the departmental proceeding till the disposal of the criminal cases. The Inquiry Officer totally ignored the said objection and did not pass any order, rather, proceeded with the inquiry ex parte when the trial of the criminal case was going on. It is, therefore, contended that after clean acquittal of the workman in the criminal cases, the management is bound to reinstate the workman in service with all consequential benefits. 8. It appears that the tribunal before answering the reference by passing the award, took up the preliminary point for hearing relating to fairness etc. of the domestic inquiry started against the concerned workman. The tribunal, vide its order dated 15.3.95, held that the domestic inquiry against the concerned workman was not at all fair and proper. The tribunal took notice of the aforesaid fact and further held that even after passing of the order dated 15.3.95 no application on the side of the management was filed seeking permission from the tribunal to adduce additional evidence in connection with the domestic inquiry or for the purpose of proving the charges levelled against the concerned workman. The tribunal took notice of the aforesaid fact and further held that even after passing of the order dated 15.3.95 no application on the side of the management was filed seeking permission from the tribunal to adduce additional evidence in connection with the domestic inquiry or for the purpose of proving the charges levelled against the concerned workman. However, the tribunal discussed the evidence of each and every witness examined on behalf of the management vis-a-vis the evidence of the concerned workman. It appears that from the side of the management the complainant, Meghraj Singh, was examined as MW 4 who lodged alleged withdrawal of Rs.5000/- by forgery. This witness has deposed in his evidence that he had no doubt against any member or staff of the Bank for withdrawal of the amount, rather he lodged his case not against any employee of the Bank but against the branch of the Bank. The tribunal has also considered the evidence of other MWs in detail and came to the conclusion that the management compelled the workman to deposit the sum of Rs.5000/- in the SB account of the complainant and the same was deposited under threat. 9. It is, therefore, evident that the award of the tribunal is based on pure findings of facts and I do not find any gross error of fact or perversity in the said finding. Moreover, as noticed above, the tribunal at the very initial stage held that the domestic inquiry was not fair and proper and admittedly no additional evidence was led by the management to prove that the domestic inquiry was fair and proper. In that view of the matter also the finding of fact arrived at by the tribunal needs no interference by this court. 10. So that as it may, both the criminal cases and the departmental proceedings were initiated simultaneously on the basis of same set of facts and the same charge. It further appears that when notice of departmental proceeding was sent to the workman, he immediately raised objection against the continuation of the departmental proceeding and filed a petition for stay of the departmental proceeding pending disposal of the criminal cases against him. It further appears that when notice of departmental proceeding was sent to the workman, he immediately raised objection against the continuation of the departmental proceeding and filed a petition for stay of the departmental proceeding pending disposal of the criminal cases against him. The Inquiry Officer did not pass any order on the prayer of the workman rather proceeded with the domestic inquiry and submitted an ex parte report on the basis whereof order of dismissal from service against the workman was passed. Subsequently, the criminal cases in which trials were going on, were disposed of and the concerned workman was acquitted of the charges levelled against him in those criminai cases. The workman, just thereafter, represented before the management informing that he had been acquitted and so he should be reinstated. The management kept the said representation pending for a long time and thereafter informed the workman that the order of dismissal will stand. 11. The law in regard to the scope of continuation of two proceedings simultaneously one in a criminal case and another by way of domestic inquiry is well settled. If has been held that if both the proceedings are based on same set of facts and in the event the deliquent is acquitted by the criminal court, then the finding recorded in the disciplinary proceeding cannot be sustained in law. The law in this regard has also been set at rest by the Apex Court in a decision in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony V/s. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and anr. reported in 1999 (3) SCC, 679 which, in my opinion, fully applied in the facts of the present case. In the case before the Supreme court the fact was that a departmental proceeding was initiated. The appellant requested for stay of the departmental proceeding till conclusion of the criminal case as the two proceedings were based on the same set of facts. The request of the appellant was not acceded to and the inquiry proceeding proceeded and ex parte order of punishment was passed. Their lordships have held that in such circumstances, after acquittal of the appellant in the criminal case the order of punishment on the basis of ex parte inquiry cannot be sustained in law. 12. The request of the appellant was not acceded to and the inquiry proceeding proceeded and ex parte order of punishment was passed. Their lordships have held that in such circumstances, after acquittal of the appellant in the criminal case the order of punishment on the basis of ex parte inquiry cannot be sustained in law. 12. From perusal of the award it appears that the tribunal has also considered this aspect of the matter and held that in view of the judgment of acquittal in the criminal case the order of dismissal passed by the management was not justified. The tribunal, therefore, held that the workman is entitled to an order for reinstatement with effect from 9.8.86 without any back wages. 13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the law discussed hereinbefore, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned award. There is no merit in this writ application which is accordingly, dismissed.