ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Smt. Poonam Srivastava counsel for the petitioner and standing counsel for the respondent. Counter rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the parties writ petition is being finally decided. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case as emerge from the pleading of the parties are : "the petitioner was appointed on 7. 8. 1989 as constable in P. A. C. In 1997, petitioner was posted at Jhansi. On 6. 4. 1997, the P. A. C. battalion was returning from Fatehgarh to Jhansi. Petitioner along with several other constables were travelling by train under the supervision of head constable Mewa Lal. Petitioner without informing Mewa Lal got down from the train at Orai railway station. On 6th April, 1997, petitioner opened fire on the residents of the mohalla Umrar khera. The police from Kotwali Orai came and apprehended the petitioner along with other constable Santosh Kumar and took them in custody. A Case Crime No. 342 of 1997 was registered under Section 307. I. P. C. against the petitioner at police station Kotwali, Orai. Petitioner was placed under suspension on 7. 4. 1997. Shri R. K. Pandey was entrusted to hold a preliminary inquiry. A preliminary inquiry report was submitted by Shri R. K. Pandey. Charge-sheet dated 15. 5. 1997 was issued by Commandant Sri Ram Tripathi against the petitioner. The charges levelled against the petitioner contained the following allegations : (a) While coming from Fatehpur under supervision of Mewa Lal, petitioner alighted from the train at railway station Orai, without permission of any competent authority along with one s. L. R. with ammunitions of 50 rounds. (b) On 6th April 1997 at 9. 30 p. m. , in mohalla Umar Khera under the influence of liquor abused the public at large and resorted to marpeet. (c) Did unauthorised firing from his S. L. R. " ( 3 ) THE petitioner in reply to the charges gave an application dated 23. 5. 1997 to the Commandant stating that charges are baseless. He stated that he will submit his detailed reply at the end of departmental Inquiry. ( 4 ) HE further submitted that on charges levelled against the petitioner, a case has been registered at police station Kotwali Orai, which is under investigation, hence on the same issues the departmental Inquiry is not justified. ( 5 ) A notice dated 28. He stated that he will submit his detailed reply at the end of departmental Inquiry. ( 4 ) HE further submitted that on charges levelled against the petitioner, a case has been registered at police station Kotwali Orai, which is under investigation, hence on the same issues the departmental Inquiry is not justified. ( 5 ) A notice dated 28. 6. 1997, was given to the petitioner by Commandant that inquiry is being held under Rule 14 (1) of U. P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and appeal) Rules, 1991, in which statement of witnesses in presence of the petitioner has been recorded and petitioner has also cross-examined the witnesses. The proceeding of prosecution has completed. Petitioner was asked to submit his explanation, documents and witnesses, which may be done within eight days in reply to the said notice. The petitioner submitted a reply on 14. 7. 1997. In his reply, he again stated that in the Criminal Case Crime No. 342 of 1997 under section 307, I. P. C. investigation is going on and till the investigation is not completed, the departmental inquiry is not in accordance with law. He stated that he has already given explanation of charges to the Investigating Officer in the criminal case which will be submitted in future in departmental proceeding. He prayed that this statement be treated to be his written statement and be kept in departmental file. The Inquiry Officer was the Commandant himself after completing the inquiry prepared an inquiry report dated 18. 7. 1997. The inquiry report found charges on the petitioner proved. The report was given to the petitioner along with show cause notice on 18. 7. 1997. The aforesaid show cause notice was replied by the petitioner on 26. 7. 1997. In the reply to show cause notice, petitioner for the first time took a stand that while he was in train, he suffered from dehydration and his condition deteriorated when he reached oral due to his illness he along With Santosh Kumar Sharma got down from the train to get medical treatment. He stated that after getting down from the train, he went to local doctor who advised him three days rest. Due to advice of doctor, he along with Santosh Kumar Sharma went to residence of Satrughan Singh at mohalla Umrar Khera. He stated that after getting down from the train, he went to local doctor who advised him three days rest. Due to advice of doctor, he along with Santosh Kumar Sharma went to residence of Satrughan Singh at mohalla Umrar Khera. The residents of mohalla fired on the petitioner thinking that petitioner and Santosh Kumar are criminals. Police also arrived from kotwali. He denied that he was under influence of liquor and stated that had there been any truth in this allegation, the police of thana Kotwali itself have got medical examination of the petitioner. Petitioner required copies of statement of witnesses and copy of the inquiry report. The Commandant Shri Ram Tripathi passed an order dated 28. 7. 1997 dismissing the petitioner from service, charges against the petitioner was found proved by the punishing authority. Petitioner filed an appeal which too was dismissed by the order dated 24. 12. 1997, against the order dated 28. 7. 1997, dismissing him from service and order dated 24. 12. 1997 passed by appellate authority, present writ petition has been filed. Petitioner has also filed a supplementary-affidavit annexing the copy of judgment dated 30. 1. 2001 of Special Judge (Dacoity affected area) Orai, Jalaun in S. T. No. 54 of 1998. The petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case. Counsel for the petitioner raised following submissions : " (i) The disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner ought to have been stayed during pendency of the criminal case under Section 307, I. P. C. registered at police station, Kotwali, orai. (ii) In view of petitioners acquittal in the criminal case vide judgment dated 30. 1. 2001, dismissal order is liable to be set aside, since on same charges criminal court has acquitted the petitioner. (iii) The inquiry against the petitioner has been held in violation of principles of natural justice. The Inquiry Officer and the Punishing Authority were one and the same person, i. e. , Sri Ram tripathi the Commandant. The same person cannot be Inquiry Officer and the Punishing authority. " ( 6 ) THE learned standing counsel refuted the submission of the counsel of the petitioner and stated that there was no necessity of staying the departmental proceeding. The charges in the criminal case and the departmental proceeding were not the same and further departmental authorities were free to proceed with the inquiry even though the criminal case was pending. The charges in the criminal case and the departmental proceeding were not the same and further departmental authorities were free to proceed with the inquiry even though the criminal case was pending. The acquittal of the petitioner from the criminal court has no effect on the dismissal order. The findings in the departmental proceedings are for entirely different nature and for different purpose. There was no prohibition on the Punishing Authority in holding the inquiry, inquiry was conducted in accordance with principles of natural Justice. ( 7 ) THE first submission of the petitioner is with regard to stay of the departmental inquiry. Before considering this submission, it is relevant to note the allegations in the criminal case against the petitioner and the allegation in departmental inquiry against the petitioner. The first information report was lodged against the petitioner by Inspector Ram Shanker of police station Kotwali, district Orai. Allegation in the first information report was that after receiving information on 6. 4. 1997 at about 21. 15 p. m. that firing is going on at mohalla Omrar Khera due to which atmosphere of fear has generated, the police force along with Sub-Inspectors and constables reached the mohalla and came in the direction of firing near the house of Avtar Singh. The informant gave warning that police has surrounded the area and they should surrender, after the warning with intention of killing, more fires were shot by accused. Police personnels narrowly escaped from the bullets and thereafter police persons also fired and at 21. 30 p. m. the petitioner was arrested from the roof of Satrughan. On inquiry, the accused disclosed that they are constables of P. A. C. The arms and ammunitions were taken into custody. The charges in the departmental inquiry which were levelled against the petitioner contained following allegations : (a) The petitioner without permission of the competent authority while coming on train from fatehpur Head Quarter alighted at railway station. Orai, along with arms and ammunition. (b) On 6th April, 1997 under the influence of liquor petitioner in mohalla Umrar Khera abused and resorted to marpeet with public of mohalla Umrar Khera. (c) Resorted to unauthorised firing. Orai, along with arms and ammunition. (b) On 6th April, 1997 under the influence of liquor petitioner in mohalla Umrar Khera abused and resorted to marpeet with public of mohalla Umrar Khera. (c) Resorted to unauthorised firing. ( 8 ) BY comparing the above allegations, it is clear that in the criminal case, the allegations under section 307, I. P. C. against the petitioner was of firing on the police party whereas the departmental inquiry was confined to entirely different allegations. The charges against the petitioner were thus not the same. Criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings have different purpose and object. In criminal proceeding, the criminal court has to examine as to whether accused has committed offence and deserves conviction, whereas the departmental proceedings are undertaken for purpose of enforcement of discipline and for finding out the measures of indiscipline and as to whether the conduct of the delinquent is such which may merit punishment as provided in the relevant services Rules. As to whether departmental inquiry and the criminal proceedings be allowed to proceed or stayed came for consideration before Apex court in several cases. Apex Court after considering earlier Judgments of the Apex Court recorded its conclusion in paragraph 22 of the report in M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Coal Mines ltd. and another, 1999 (3) SCC 679 . Paragraph 22 of the report is quoted as below : "22. The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are : (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. (iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated. Question 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. (iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated. Question 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 view of the conclusion which have been laid down in the aforesaid case by the Apex Court, the departmental inquiry can proceed even if the charges in both the inquiries are same. In the present case, charges being different, there was no occasion for staying departmental proceedings. No error was committed by departmental authorities in not staying the departmental proceedings. ( 10 ) THE second submission of the counsel for the petitioner that in view of the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case, dismissal of petitioner deserves to be set aside has also no merit. ( 11 ) THE petitioners counsel has placed reliance on judgment of Apex Court in Capt. M. Paul anthonys case (supra ). The reasons due to which the departmental proceedings against appellant in Capt. M. Paul Anthonys were held to be vitiated on acquittal of appellant were mentioned in paragraphs 34 and 35 of the judgment. Paragraphs 34 and 35 are extracted below : "34. There is yet another reason for discarding the whole of the case of the respondents. As pointed out earlier, the criminal case as also the departmental proceedings were based on identical set of facts, namely, "the raid conducted at the appellants residence and recovery of incriminating articles therefrom". Paragraphs 34 and 35 are extracted below : "34. There is yet another reason for discarding the whole of the case of the respondents. As pointed out earlier, the criminal case as also the departmental proceedings were based on identical set of facts, namely, "the raid conducted at the appellants residence and recovery of incriminating articles therefrom". The findings recorded by the inquiry officer, a copy of which has been placed before us, indicate that the charges framed against the appellant were sought to be proved by police officers and panch witnesses, who had raided the house of the appellant and had effected recovery. They were the only witnesses examined by the inquiry officer and the inquiry officer, relying upon their statements, came to the conclusion that the charges were established against the appellant. The same witnesses were examined in the criminal case but the court, on a consideration of the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that no search was conducted nor was any recovery made from the residence of the appellant. The whole case of the prosecution was thrown out and the appellant was acquitted. In this situation, therefore, where the appellants is acquitted by a judicial pronouncement with the finding that the "raid and recovery" at the residence of the appellant were not proved, it would be unjust, unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded at the ex parte departmental proceedings to stand. 35. Since the facts and the evidence in both the proceedings, namely, the departmental proceedings and the criminal case were the same without there being any iota of difference, the distinction, which is usually drawn as between the departmental proceedings and the criminal case on the basis of approach and burden of proof, would not be applicable to the instant case. . . . . . . " ( 12 ) THE Apex Court has held in the M. Paul Anthonys case that evidence in both the proceeding were the same without their being any iota of difference, in the present case from the judgment of the criminal court and the inquiry report and findings of the inquiry, it is clear that the witnesses who appeared in both proceedings were entirely different. In criminal case, the residents of village Umrar Khera, Orai and the police persons of Kotwali, Orai, appeared, whereas in the departmental proceedings, the constables of P. A. C. who were coming from fatehgarh to Jhansi, appeared and other constables of Head Quarter. The witnesses in both the proceedings were not common. ( 13 ) AS observed above, the charges in criminal case and in departmental proceedings were entirely different. The facts that petitioner was acquitted in criminal case has no, bearing on the departmental proceedings. The dismissal order is based on an inquiry conducted in accordance with 1991 Rules. The dismissal order is not liable to be set aside on the basis of acquittal. ( 14 ) THE learned single Judge of this Court in Vikram v. Union of India and others, 2001 (1)UPLBEC 374 , has also held that by acquittal in the criminal case, a person is not automatically entitled for setting aside of dismissal order. Paragraph 10 of the judgment is extracted below : "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 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 inquired 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. It is in the interest of administration, which demands that undesirable elements are thrown out and any charge of misdemeanour is inquired 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 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 inquiry the petitioner was charged of misdirecting or misleading the inquiry officer. This 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. " thus, the second submission of the petitioner has no merit. ( 15 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner next submitted that Inquiry Officer was the Commandant Sri Ram tripathi who has passed the dismissal order. Counsel submitted that same person being the inquiry Officer and the punishing authority is breach of principles of natural justice. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Judgment of this Court in Ajay Pal Singh v. D. P. R. O. , 1995 awc 1377. The aforesaid submission of the counsel for the petitioner also does not have any substance. Counsel submitted that same person being the inquiry Officer and the punishing authority is breach of principles of natural justice. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Judgment of this Court in Ajay Pal Singh v. D. P. R. O. , 1995 awc 1377. The aforesaid submission of the counsel for the petitioner also does not have any substance. There is no provision under 1991 Rules or any other law that inquiry cannot be conducted by Punishing Authority. It is the Punishing Authority who issues the charge-sheet. Inquiry Officer is appointed by Punishing Authority for purposes of holding inquiry so that evidence be collected and delinquent may get opportunity to lead his evidence. If the Punishing authority himself conducts the inquiry, no principles of rules of natural justice are violated. Reference is made to Rule 13 of 1991 Rules. Rule 13 provides : "officer not competent to conduct disciplinary proceedings.--A Gazetted officer of the police force who is either a prosecution witness in the case or has earlier conducted a preliminary inquiry in that case shall not conduct inquiry in that case under these Rules. In case the said gazetted officer is the Superintendent of Police himself, the Deputy Inspector General concerned shall be moved to transfer the case to some other district or unit as the case may be. " ( 16 ) RULE 13 creates a prohibition that a police officer who is either a prosecution witness or has earlier conducted a preliminary inquiry will not conduct departmental inquiry. In the charge-sheet Item No. 11 mentions that the preliminary inquiry report was submitted by Shri R. K. Pandey. Sri Ram Tripathi, the Punishing Authority has not conducted the preliminary inquiry hence he was not debarred from functioning as Inquiry Officer. The same principles were also contained in paragraph 489a of Police Regulation. Paragraph 489a of Police Regulation is extracted below : "a Gazetted officer who is either a prosecution witness in a case or has earlier conducted a preliminary inquiry in that case shall not conduct the proceedings under Section 7 of the Police act in that case. In case the Gazetted officer concerned is a Superintendent of Police himself and there is no additional Superintendent of Police in that district, the Deputy Inspector General of police concerned should be moved to transfer the case to some other district. In case the Gazetted officer concerned is a Superintendent of Police himself and there is no additional Superintendent of Police in that district, the Deputy Inspector General of police concerned should be moved to transfer the case to some other district. " ( 17 ) THE counsel for the petitioner has not been able to cite any precedent or any statutory provision which prohibit the Punishing Authority from conducting any inquiry. ( 18 ) THE decision of Ajay Pal Singh, (1995) AWC 1377, is a case in which the preliminary inquiry was held by B. D. O. and the same B. D. O. was appointed as a Inquiry Officer. In that circumstance, this Court held violation of Rules of natural justice. ( 19 ) IN the present case, preliminary inquiry has been conducted by Shri R. K Pandey. The submissions of counsel for the petitioner that by conducting inquiry by Punishing Authority, rules of principles of natural justice were vitiated cannot be accepted. ( 20 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner lastly submitted that punishment awarded is disproportionate to the charge. The petitioner were serious. The Apex Court has held in several decisions that the punishing Authority is sole Judge to award the punishment on delinquent and the High Court normally does not interfere with the quantum of the punishment unless the punishment shocks the conscience of the Court. ( 21 ) IN the present case, the charges against petitioner were proved which are of serious nature containing allegation of getting down from the train without permission of the competent authority and under influence of liquor indulging in marpeet with public and firing, charges were serious hence the submission is without any substance. ( 22 ) IN view of the above, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed. .