GODA RAGHURAM, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a driver in the APSRTC. On allegations of negligent performance of duties, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner in the year 1993 and by the orders dated 27-4-1994 of the 3rd respondent a penalty of removal was inflicted on the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the second respondent which authority by the orders dated 29-8-1994 confirmed the primary orders. The petitioner preferred a review to the first respondent against the primary and appellate orders above and by the orders dated 6-11-1996, the first respondent on the basis of the remarks in the log sheet found that the accident had occurred due to failure of the brakes, that the driver has not applied his mind to avert the ghastly accident but that in view of his past experience and record, the benefit of doubt is given to the driver petitioner. Accordingly by the subsequent orders dated 6-11-1996 the extreme penalty of removal was substituted by the order of reinstatement into service on a reduced basic pay and such reduction shall have cumulative effect for a period of one year, treating the period of suspension till the date of reporting to duty as not on duty. ( 2 ) AFTER the finality of the disciplinary proceedings by the orders dated 6-11-1996, it is contended by the petitioner that he was acquitted of the charge of rash and negligent by the orders in CC No. 153 of 1994 dated 20-4-1998 and that in view of his acquittal in the criminal case and the findings of the reviewing authority that there is some evidence to disclose failure of the brakes, he should have been totally exonerated from the charge. ( 3 ) IT is now too well settled that the parameters of determination in departmental proceedings and criminal case are distinct and the degree of burden of proof for establishing the charges in the two proceedings also distinct and different. The departmental proceedings against the petitioner culminated in a finding of his guilt but with a variation of the penalty by the orders of the reviewing authority, on 6-11-1996. The fact that he was acquitted of the criminal charge in CC no. The departmental proceedings against the petitioner culminated in a finding of his guilt but with a variation of the penalty by the orders of the reviewing authority, on 6-11-1996. The fact that he was acquitted of the criminal charge in CC no. 153 of 1994 subsequent to the culmination of the disciplinary proceedings cannot be a ground nor be a germane consideration for re-reviewing the disciplinary proceedings, which have already attained more than adequate measure of finality. The fact that there is some record as to the failure of brakes has been taken into consideration by the reviewing authority in varying the punishment imposed by the orders dated 6-11-1996. The petitioner has not chosen to assail these orders for more than four years now. It is stated that he has been making representations. But repeated representations do permit avoidance of the consequence of delay and laches. ( 4 ) IN the totality of the circumstances above, this Court finds no warrant for interference. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.