Judgment Shiva Kirti Singh, J. 1. Petitioner was a Junior Accounts Clerk in the office of Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) posted at Electric Supply Sub-Division, Dehri-on-Sone. During office hours on 24.1.1992, an incident of fire took place in the office room of the petitioner resulting into loss of some important revenue records at a time when internal audit party had requisitioned for the records. Petitioner and his superior, Sri Krishna Mishra, Accountant were chargesheeted and in the departmental proceeding, they were held guilty of various charges and were dismissed from service. Petitioner has, through this writ petition, challenged the order of his dismissal from service vide office order no. 106 dated 9.1.1996 contained in Annexure-20. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has altogether raised four objections against the impugned order. Firstly, it has been submitted that at subsequent stage the departmental proceeding was held ex parte for no fault of the petitioner and impugned order should be quashed because it is based upon enquiry report of an enquiry which was vitiated in law. Secondly, learned counsel for the petitioner urged this Court to go into detailed facts and hold that petitioner had no motive to cause the fire incident. Continuing in the same vein the third submission was that this Court should appreciate the fact that during enquiry there was no eye witness of the alleged occurrence and the criminal case lodged for the same incident had failed on account of insufficient evidence hence, this Court should reverse the finding given in the enquiry report and hold the petitioner not guilty of the charges and lastly, it was submitted that punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the gravity of charges. 3. The chargesheet submitted against the petitioner is contained in Annexure-8 dated 12.3.1993. The charge mainly relates to the allegation that there was reported bungling in revenue records, particularly in respect of Electric Supply Sub- Division, Banjari with which the petitioner was dealing as Junior Accounts Clerk. Internal audit party had made requisition for revenue ledgers on 20.1.1992 to look into the relevant matters and some of the records requisitioned by the audit got destroyed in the fire which took place on 24.1.1992. As per charge, the petitioner as Junior Accounts Clerk was involved in the fire which broke out on 24.1.1992 and destroyed the revenue records of 1987-88 to 1989-1990. As per charge, the petitioner as Junior Accounts Clerk was involved in the fire which broke out on 24.1.1992 and destroyed the revenue records of 1987-88 to 1989-1990. Petitioner was charged with responsibility for destruction of the records causing loss to the Board with intent to avoid the audit and enquiry constituted by the Central Area Electricity Board. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner attended departmental proceeding along with his representative, Sri Chakradhar Prasad Singh, at the initial stage but he stopped attending the proceeding since April, 1994. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, facts mentioned in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the writ petition clearly show that on 8.4.1994, a date fixed in the departmental proceeding, petitioners representative was not allowed entry in Vidyut Bhawan, the headquarters of the Board. Petitioner has annexed certain correspondences in this regard as Annexure 12 series. Through a letter dated 8.4.1994 the petitioner informed the enquiry officer that his representative had been stopped by the security officer and he had to return back because at that time the enquiry officer was not in his chambers. In the said letter dated 8.4.1994 a request was made to hold the enquiry at Dehri-on-Sone or in the office of Central Area Electricity Board at Patna. A letter dated 15.4.1994 from the enquiry officer to the petitioner which is part of Annexure-12 series, further shows that the request to change the venue of the enquiry was turned down. The next date of enquiry was fixed as 3.5.1994 and petitioner was informed that appropriate directions were being issued to the Joint Secretary of the Board to ensure that there was no difficulty in presence of petitioners representative. A letter dated 29.4.1994 of Joint Secretary shows that he had authorised the enquiry officer to inform the reception of the Board as and when presence of petitioners representative, Shri Chakradhar Prasad Singh was required. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the Joint Secretary (Sri J.P.Yadav) sent his reply to the letter of the enquiry officer dated 15.4.1994 only to the enquiry officer without making any communication to the petitioner and since the enquiry officer did not forward the reply of the Joint Secretary dated 29.4.1994 hence petitioner was justified in not appearing on 3.5.1994 inspite of receipt of letter dated 15.4.1994, discussed earlier. 5. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Bihar State Electricity Board relied upon detailed averments made in paragraphs 5 and 6 of counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3 to submit that full opportunity was given to the petitioner to appear in the departmental enquiry along with his representative but the petitioner deliberately and willingly did not participate in the said enquiry on one pretext or the other and hence, enquiry officer was just/fied in proceeding with the enquiry ex parte. These two paragraphs of the counter affidavit also placed reliance upon a number of relevant correspondences touching the point in question and they have been annexed as Annexures A to S to the counter affidavit. The averments made in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the counter affidavit have not been controverted by the petitioner in his rejoinder. Such uncontroverted averments leave no manner of doubt that there was no valid excuses for the petitioner not to appear in the departmental enquiry on 3.5.1994, 7.6.1994 when he was served with a copy of letter of the Joint Secretary dated 29.4.1994 and 28.6.1994 (intimation of the date duly given). On 28.6.1994, petitioner filed an application for change of enquiry officer. The enquiry officer himself adjourned the enquiry sine die on 14.7.1994 although petitioner did not appear on that date. After the request for change of enquiry officer was rejected by the competent authority, the petitioner was informed of the next date and he appeared on 12.9.1994 but made a prayer for adjournment on the ground of his defence assistant being out of town. The enquiry was adjourned to 25.9.1994 but on 24.9.1994 the petitioner informed the enquiry officer regarding filing of a writ petition in the High Court bearing CWJC No. 7398 of 1994. On 12.10.1994, the enquiry officer was asked by the competent authority to proceed with the enquiry for the reason that no prohibitory order was passed in that writ petition which was actually directed against an order of suspension. On 20.12.1994, the petitioner appeared in the enquiry but again filed a petition for stay on the ground of pending writ petition. The enquiry officer after getting further instruction from the competent authority fixed 9.2.1995 as the next date in the enquiry and intimated the petitioner vide letter dated 14.1.1995 but the petitioner did not appear on 9.2.1995. On 20.12.1994, the petitioner appeared in the enquiry but again filed a petition for stay on the ground of pending writ petition. The enquiry officer after getting further instruction from the competent authority fixed 9.2.1995 as the next date in the enquiry and intimated the petitioner vide letter dated 14.1.1995 but the petitioner did not appear on 9.2.1995. Then the enquiry officer began examination of witnesses produced on behalf of the Board but informed the petitioner of the next dates i.e. 15.2.1995 and 21.2.1995 but the petitioner did not appear. Learned counsel for the Board has submitted that in such situation the enquiry officer can not be faulted for completing the enquiry ex parte and submitting its report on the basis of evidence recorded on behalf of the Board including documentary evidence. 6. On examining all the relevant materials in respect of grievance raised on behalf of the petitioner regarding holding of ex parte enquiry, this Court finds that the enquiry officer had acted in accordance with law in proceeding to complete the enquiry ex parte when petitioner did not co-operate in spite of adequate opportunity. The first objection raised on behalf of the petitioner is thus found to be devoid of any merit. 7. So far as second and third objections raised on behalf of the petitioner are concerned, on going through the enquiry report and the materials referred therein this Court finds that the proceeding was conducted in accordance with law and in spite of full opportunity petitioner did not adduce any defence to the charges and even then the enquiry officer took pains to consider the materials on record before giving the relevant findings mentioned in the enquiry report contained in Annexure- 17 to the writ petition. The discussion in the enquiry report is a complete answer to the submission on behalf of the petitioner that only part of the records were burnt and petitioner had no motive for being associated with the fire in the office during office hours which was reported by the petitioner and was found not to be caused by any electrical fault in the premises. Unless this Court finds the enquiry report to be perverse based upon no materials, it would not be proper for this Court to enter into thickets of fact in exercise of writ jurisdiction and substitute the findings of the enquiry officer with its own findings. Unless this Court finds the enquiry report to be perverse based upon no materials, it would not be proper for this Court to enter into thickets of fact in exercise of writ jurisdiction and substitute the findings of the enquiry officer with its own findings. Thus, this Court finds no justification or valid reasons to accept the second and third contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, as noticed earlier. It is relevant to observe here that acceptance of final report submitted by the police in the criminal case relating to same fire incident on the ground that evidence collected was inadequate, will not affect the departmental proceeding. It is well established in law that standard of proof required in a criminal case and in a departmental proceeding are entirely different. In a criminal case evidence must prove the charge beyond any reasonable doubt whereas in a departmental proceeding it is permissible and proper to decide the charge on preponderance of probabilities. 8. Before coming to the last contention raised on behalf of the petitioner in respect of quantum of punishment, it is relevant to note the submission on behalf of the respondents that charges against the petitioner and another employee, Sri Krishna Mishra, Accountant (Revenue) were similar in nature and based upon similar evidence and as would appear from a judgment of this Court dated 13.4.1998 (Annexure-T) this Court found no merit in the case of Mr. Mishra and refused to interfere with the order of dismissal passed against him. A perusal of Annexure-T shows that the Accountant was similarly charged regarding involvement in the fire incident on 24.1.1992 and in spite of his participation in the enquiry, the enquiry report found the charges proved and although Mr. Mishra had challenged the enquiry report along with the order of dismissal, this Court found no good ground to grant him any relief. It has come in paragraph 6 of the enquiry report that the incidence of fire took place in a particular room where the petitioner used to sit and work, the report regarding limited fire in the room was made by this petitioner and Sri Krishna Mishra in afternoon of the same day and the enquiry officer found the motive and intention in causing fire to have been conclusively proved in paragraph 9 of the enquiry report. 9. 9. In the background of such facts and materials this Court does not find it a fit case where the punishment of dismissal may be termed as perverse and interfered with under writ jurisdiction. Hence, the last submission on behalf of the petitioner that the punishment is excessive and disproportionate is also found to be without substance. As a result, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. In the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.