JUDGMENT R.M. PRASAD, J. In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 19.8.1989, contained in Annexure 7, passed by the appellate authority whereby and where under the punishment of censor imposed upon him was set aside and the punishment of with-holding of one increment was enhanced for with-holding of two increments with commutative effect. Besides this, the order of punishment about payment in respect of the period of suspension was maintained and that he will not be entitled for payment of the amount other than what has been paid during the said period but his service of the said period was counted as tenure of service. 2. In short the relevant facts are that a proceeding was initiated against the petitioner for the charge of theft of an Air Regulator while posted as Mechanic Grade ‘A’ in the Central Workshop, Patna. It appears that a criminal case was also instituted against him for the same charge and it ended in acquittal on account of non-production of exhibits and some other lacuna. However, in the departmental proceeding the charge has been proved on examination of witnesses and evidence. The disciplinary authority while inflicing the aforementioned punishment vide Annexure 6 also took into consideration of the enquiry report which mentioned about confession made by the petitioner before the Works Manager at the time of detection of theft and inflicted punishment. The petitioner preferred appeal and the appellate authority vide impugned order, contained in Annexure 7, on consideration of the materials available on record found that the charge is quite serious which could merit the punishment of dismissal. It has also been found by him that on the ground of acquittal in the criminal case a lenient view was sought to be taken and the punishment of censor, with-holding of increment and transfer was given which was approved by the Addl. Managing Director also. According to him, the punishment given to him has been less than the warranted punishment and accordingly, modified the order of punishment as aforementioned. 3. learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned orders of the disciplinary authority as well as of the appellate authority suffer from vice of noncompliance of law settled for giving second show cause notice and the same are thus vitiated on this ground alone. 3. learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned orders of the disciplinary authority as well as of the appellate authority suffer from vice of noncompliance of law settled for giving second show cause notice and the same are thus vitiated on this ground alone. It is also submitted that the appellate authority has erred in noticing the alleged confession of the petitioner. In fact, no such confession was even made by the petitioner. He was acquitted in the criminal case for want of sufficient evidence. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, in view of law settled by the Apex Court in the case of Capt. M. Paulanthony v. Bharat Gold Mines ltd. & Anr., reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 , the order of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority cannot be upheld as they were passed after acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal proceedings initiated against him for the same charge and on the same set of facts which were to be proved by the same witnesses. 4. Learned Counsel for the Corporation, on the other hand, has submitted that the simultaneous continuance of the two proceedings, namely, departmental enquiry and the criminal proceedings are permissible in law and the scope of these two proceedings are different and that can be dealt independently. Accordingly, in the departmental proceeding witnesses were examined and the evidence were produced, on consideration of which the petitioner has been found guilty. As such, his acquittal in the criminal proceeding will not vitiate the orders by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority in the departmental proceeding. 5. This Court is unable to accept the said submission of Mr. Verma, learned Counsel appearing for the Corporation. The re cannot be any dispute to the proposition that two proceedings, namely, departmental enquiry and the criminal proceedings can continue simultaneous and that the scope of these two proceedings is different and they can be continued independently but the Apex Court in the case of Capt. Verma, learned Counsel appearing for the Corporation. The re cannot be any dispute to the proposition that two proceedings, namely, departmental enquiry and the criminal proceedings can continue simultaneous and that the scope of these two proceedings is different and they can be continued independently but the Apex Court in the case of Capt. M. Paulanthony (supra) has held that ''the finding recorded against the appellant in a disciplinary enquiry could not be sustained keeping in view that both the proceedings were based on the same set of facts which were sought to be proved by the same witnesses." In the present case also in both the proceedings the charge was same and were based on the same set of facts which were to be proved by the same witnesses but the criminal prosecution failed and the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case as it was difficult to say that the article recovered from his possession actually belonged to Bihar State Transport, Phulwari Sharif workshop. The learned Magistrate has found that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly, held the petitioner not guilty of any offence and acquitted him. 6. It appears from the impugned order that the appellate authority has completely overlooked this aspect though noticed that the charge of theft of Air Regulator was also a subject matter of the criminal case which ended in acquittal on account of non-production of exhibits and some other lacuna. 7. This Court gave ample opportunity to the learned Counsel for the Corporation to produce the so called confessional statement mentioned in the enquiry report but he has failed to produce the same till date. Under such circumstances, in my opinion, the impugned orders of the disciplinary authority as well as of the appellate authority, contained in Annexures 6 and 7 respectively, cannot be sustained and they are accordingly quashed. It is needless to say that the respondent Corporation shall give all consequential benefits to the petitioner. In the result, the writ application is allowed but without costs.