O. P. GARG, J. ( 1 ) THE crucial question for determination in the present writ petition is that whether a government servant who has been removed from service after departmental inquiry on the charges which have also given rise to a criminal case against the said employee is liable to be reinstated after a final order of acquittal has been passed in the criminal case. The controversy is the product of the following facts. ( 2 ) THE petitioner-Vikrama Singh was appointed as a constable in Railway Protection Force in the year 1975. After a number of transfers, he came to be posted at Varanasi. He was placed under suspension by order dated 2. 1. 1991 passed by the competent authority on account of the fact that he was involved in a Crime Case No. 20 of 1990 R. P. F. /dn. Post registered under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). It gave rise to the trial of the petitioner as an accused with other accused persons in Criminal Case No. 810 of 1992. A departmental inquiry on the same allegations for which first information report was lodged, was also initiated. The order of suspension was challenged by the petitioner by filing civil Misc. Writ No. 8385 of 1991. The order of suspension was quashed with the observation that the disciplinary authority shall be at liberty to conduct the departmental inquiry after serving a charge-sheet. After reinstatement, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 11. 3. 1993. After the conclusion of the departmental inquiry, the petitioner was removed from service on 7. 7. 1994. The petitioner preferred a departmental appeal which was dismissed on 7. 3. 1995 by the appellate authority, i. e. , Additional Chief Security Commissioner. Eastern railway. Calcutta, a copy of which is Annexure-7 to the writ petition. The trial of the petitioner in Criminal Case No. 810 of 1992 culminated in passing of an order of acquittal dated 2. 4. 1997 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Eastern railway, Mughalsarai. After acquittal, the petitioner moved an application for his reinstatement on 22. 1. 1998 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition ). The trial of the petitioner in Criminal Case No. 810 of 1992 culminated in passing of an order of acquittal dated 2. 4. 1997 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Eastern railway, Mughalsarai. After acquittal, the petitioner moved an application for his reinstatement on 22. 1. 1998 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition ). It is stated that the departmental authorities informed the petitioner that the order of acquittal has been challenged by filing a criminal appeal against the order of acquittal before this Court. The question of reinstatement of the petitioner in service after acquittal was, therefore, deferred. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought the relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate him in service. ( 3 ) COUNTER and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. Heard Sri V. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. B. Paul appearing on behalf of the respondents. ( 4 ) THE contention of the petitioner is that since the criminal and departmental proceedings against the petitioner were based on identical set of facts, namely, the theft of certain railway property and recovery thereof from his possession, the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service after his acquittal from the criminal charge. It was pointed out that even the Criminal appeal No. 2448 of 1998 preferred by the respondents against the order of acquittal has been dismissed by this Court on 1. 10. 1999. An application for recall of the said order was moved by the Union of India which too has been dismissed on 4. 2. 2000 and in this manner, the order of acquittal of the petitioner has become final. In support of his contention that after acquittal, the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement in service, reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another, (1999) 3 scc 679 . Sri B. B. Paul, however, repelled the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner primarily on the ground that the scope and object of the departmental inquiry as well as criminal trial are entirely different and petitioner was not necessarily required to be reinstated as the order of removal has become final. Sri B. B. Paul, however, repelled the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner primarily on the ground that the scope and object of the departmental inquiry as well as criminal trial are entirely different and petitioner was not necessarily required to be reinstated as the order of removal has become final. ( 5 ) THE gravamen of the charge against the petitioner was that when he was on escort duty along with other constables at Dn. Central Yard/m. G. S. on 12. 12. 1990 one sealed load speed link 3064 was standing on line No. 8 at Dn. Central Yard/mugalsarai. They were to escort the train up to gaya. The goods train started from Dn. Central Yard at 10. 50 p. m. but due to red signal, the said train stopped on main Dn. line for some time. At that time, all the constables on duty including the petitioner removed 13 numbers of V. I. P. suit cases and one television from one wagon attached to the said train after breaking the seal and rivet of north side door and those stolen 13 numbers of V. I. P. suit cases and one television were kept in railway quarter No. 1315/b which was in occupation of the petitioner. On getting a tip and secret information on 26. 12. 1990, I. P. F. B. D. Singh of Dn. Post/mughalsarai along with staff under the supervision of Sri Nirmal Singh conducted search of the railway quarter in occupation of the petitioner at New Shastri Colony, mughalsarai and therefrom recovered 8 numbers of V. I. P. suit cases. 75 numbers of lifebuoy soap cakes, one television and other materials. On the basis of the confessional statement made by the petitioner, further searches were conducted at the residences of the other constables and thereafter a case under Section 3 of the Act was registered against the petitioner and others. ( 6 ) ON the basis of the above allegations, the petitioner was sought to be prosecuted on a criminal charge pursuant to the F. I. R. lodged against him and other accused persons and simultaneously, he was also proposed to be proceeded against departmentally after placing him under suspension. The order of suspension, as said above, was quashed by this Court with liberty to the disciplinary authority to hold a departmental inquiry after serving the charge-sheet. The order of suspension, as said above, was quashed by this Court with liberty to the disciplinary authority to hold a departmental inquiry after serving the charge-sheet. ( 7 ) THERE is a consensus about the legal position that the proceedings in a criminal case and departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously. The basis of this proposition is that the proceedings in a criminal case and departmental proceedings operate in distinct and different jurisdictional areas. In the departmental proceedings, factors operating in the mind of the disciplinary authority may be many such as enforcement of discipline or to investigate level of integrity of delinquent or other staff. However, in certain exceptional circumstances, where departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on the same set of facts and evidence, the departmental proceedings may be deferred till the conclusion of the criminal trial so that the employee or the accused may not be seriously prejudiced in his defence. This aspect of the matter has been dealt with in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Kushal Bhon, AIR 1960 SC 806 ; Tata Off Mills Co. Ltd. v. Workmen. AIR 1965 SC 155 ; Jang Bahadur Singh v. Baij Nath tewari, AIR 1969 SC 30 ; Kusheshwar Dubey v. Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. . (1988) 4 SCC 319 ; nelson Motis v. Union of India, (1992) 4 SCC 711 ; State of Rajasthan v. B. K. Meena, (1996) 6 scc 417 ; Depot Manager. AP SRTC v. Mohd. Yusuf Miya. (1997) 2 SCC 699 and Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another (supra ). ( 8 ) THE conclusions which are deducible from the above decisions have been stated in para 22 of capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd and another (supra) as follows : " (i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. (ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. (ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. (iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge-sheet. (iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. (v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty, his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest. " ( 9 ) IN the instant case, though the petitioner was involved in the criminal case, this Court had directed that the disciplinary authority shall be at liberty to hold departmental inquiry against the petitioner. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, a charge-sheet was served on the petitioner on 11. 3. 1993 and after a full-fledged enquiry, according to law, the petitioner was removed from service on 7. 7. 1994 and the departmental appeal filed by him also failed as it was dismissed on 7. 3. 1995. The order of acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal trial came into existence after about two years and nine months of the order of removal of the petitioner from services. By and large, the charge against the petitioner in the departmental proceedings as well as in the criminal case was identical except that in the departmental proceeding, there was an added allegation that the petitioner had tried to mislead the Inquiry Officer by giving a false statement. By and large, the charge against the petitioner in the departmental proceedings as well as in the criminal case was identical except that in the departmental proceeding, there was an added allegation that the petitioner had tried to mislead the Inquiry Officer by giving a false statement. This charge was also established against the petitioner. Sri B. B. Paul pointed out that under Rule 3 of the railway Service (Conduct) Rules. 1966, every railway servant is required at all times to (i)maintain absolute integrity ; (ii) maintain devotion to duty and (iii) do nothing which is unbecoming of a railway or Government servant. In view of this provision, it was asserted that the railway department is under obligation to weed out employees of corrupt and shady nature. Sri Paul further made a reference to the decisions of the Apex Court in Depot Manager, Andhra pradesh Road Transport Corporation v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya etc. , AIR 1997 SC 2232 ; Nelson motis (supra) as well as State of Rajasthan v. B. K. Meena and others (supra) to make a point that the scope and object of the departmental inquiry and the criminal trial are entirely different and, therefore, even if a person has been finally acquitted of the criminal charge, he cannot be forced on the department after his removal from service. There is no doubt that the legal position with regard to the nature of the two types of proceedings is quite distinct and different. The crux and gamut of all the above decisions on the point is that an offence generally implies infringement of public, as distinguished from mere private rights punishable under criminal law. When trial for criminal offence is conducted. it should be in accordance with proof of the offence as per the evidence defined under the provisions of the Evidence Act. Converse is the case of departmental inquiry. The inquiry in a departmental proceeding relates to conduct or breach of duty of the delinquent officer to punish him for his misconduct defined under the relevant statutory rules or law. That the strict standard of proof or applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded is a settled legal position. The inquiry in the departmental proceedings relates to the conduct of the delinquent officer and proof in that behalf is not as high as in an offence in criminal charge. That the strict standard of proof or applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded is a settled legal position. The inquiry in the departmental proceedings relates to the conduct of the delinquent officer and proof in that behalf is not as high as in an offence in criminal charge. It is seen that invariably the departmental inquiry has to be conducted expeditiously so as to effectuate the efficiency in public administration and the criminal trial will take its own course. The nature of evidence in criminal trial is entirely different from the departmental proceedings. In the former, prosecution is to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the touchstone of human conduct. The standard of proof in the departmental proceedings is not the same as of the criminal trial. The evidence also is different from standard point of Evidence Act. The evidence required in the departmental inquiry is not regulated by evidence Act. ( 10 ) THE case of the present petitioner has to be considered with a different angle. The approach and objective in criminal proceedings and the departmental proceedings, as said above, are altogether distinct and different. In the disciplinary proceedings, the question is whether the respondent is guilty of such conduct as would merit his removal from service or a lesser punishment, as the case may be, whereas in the criminal proceedings, the question is whether the offences registered against him are established and if established, what sentence should be imposed upon him. Obviously, the standard of proof, the mode of inquiry and the rules governing the inquiry and trial in both the cases are entirely distinct and different. With a view to maintain discipline, transparency and the efficiency in the public service, the right of the disciplinary authority to punish the employee independent of the result of the criminal charge has to be conceded. It is also necessary that the departmental proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible. It is in the interest of administration, which demands that undesirable elements are thrown out and any charge of misdemeanour is enquired into promptly. The disciplinary proceedings are meant not really to punish the guilty but to keep the administrative machinery unsullied by getting rid of bad elements. In the instant case, the petitioner was removed from service after due inquiry by the competent authority. His departmental appeal was " also dismissed. The disciplinary proceedings are meant not really to punish the guilty but to keep the administrative machinery unsullied by getting rid of bad elements. In the instant case, the petitioner was removed from service after due inquiry by the competent authority. His departmental appeal was " also dismissed. The subsequent order of acquittal which came into being after two years and nine months of the removal of the petitioner cannot, in any manner, efface the conclusions arrived at in the departmental inquiry. Besides the allegations pertaining to the criminal charge which were also the subject-matters of departmental enquiry, the petitioner was charged of misdirecting or misleading the Inquiry Officer. The charge was also established against him. This aspect of the matter was not subject-matter of the criminal case. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was removed from service on the identical allegations which were subject matter of scrutiny in the criminal case. The petitioner was involved in a charge of theft of the railway property. It was the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. The burden is on the prosecution to establish the charge to the hilt, while the accused can afford to keep mum in the criminal trial. This heavy burden of proof is not required in a departmental inquiry. The disciplinary authority has to weigh a number of circumstances attending the case and the defence of the delinquent employee. The findings arrived at by the disciplinary authority and as confirmed in the departmental appeal cannot be faulted merely on the ground of acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case. ( 11 ) THERE is yet another aspect of the matter. The order dated 7. 4. 1994 of removal of the petitioner from service and as confirmed in the appeal has become final. The petitioner did not challenge the said order of removal. The final order of removal cannot be set at naught merely on the ground that the petitioner has been ultimately acquitted in the criminal case. The decision in capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra) on which emphatic reliance has been placed is hardly of any help to the petitioner. The petitioner did not challenge the said order of removal. The final order of removal cannot be set at naught merely on the ground that the petitioner has been ultimately acquitted in the criminal case. The decision in capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra) on which emphatic reliance has been placed is hardly of any help to the petitioner. It is true that in that case consequent upon passing of the order of acquittal, the petitioner of that case was allowed to be reinstated in service primarily on the ground that the facts and evidence in departmental as well as in criminal proceedings were the same without there being any iota of difference. It was observed by the Apex Court that the distinction which is usually drawn between departmental and criminal proceedings on the basis of approach and burden of proof would not be applicable in that case. The Apex Court noted that in the peculiar circumstances of the case, specially-having regard to the fact that the appellant is undergoing the agony since 1985 despite having been acquitted by the criminal court in 1987, it did not direct any fresh departmental inquiry to be instituted against the appellant on the same set of facts. A direction was issued that the appellant shall be reinstated forthwith on the post of Security officer and shall be paid the entire arrears of salary together with all allowances from the date of suspension till his reinstatement. The appellant was also found entitled to his cost which were quantified as Rs. 15,000. In Capt. M. Paul Anthonys case (supra), inquiry was found to be unjust, unfair and rather oppressive as they were recorded ex parte in the departmental proceedings. The peculiar circumstances which existed in Capt. M. Paul Anthonys case (supra)are not attracted to the facts of the present case and, therefore, the petitioner cannot move on the crutches of the various observations made by the Apex Court in that case. The observations obviously are to be confined to the peculiar facts of that case. ( 12 ) AFTER having carefully examined the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the administrative expediency demanded the conclusion of the departmental inquiry against the petitioner with all expedition. The observations obviously are to be confined to the peculiar facts of that case. ( 12 ) AFTER having carefully examined the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the administrative expediency demanded the conclusion of the departmental inquiry against the petitioner with all expedition. It was completed unmindful of the pendency of criminal trial and the order of removal was passed in view of the seriousness of the allegations including the one that he tried to misguide the Inquiry Officer. The order of removal became final. Subsequent order of acquittal in the criminal case has no bearing on the earlier order of removal. It simply meant that the guilt of the petitioner on the criminal charge could not be brought home and, therefore, he could not be punished for the offence charged. ( 13 ) THE petitioner is not entitled to be reinstated in service after he had been removed from service even though subsequently he has been acquitted of the criminal charge. The petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed without any order as to costs. .