ORDER Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. As per the case of the petitioners, the petitioner No. 1, who was posted as Loading/Despatch Clerk (UDC) was served with a charge sheet dated 21.10.1995 containing the following charges, which are quoted below :- "It has been reported that on 16.10.1995 at about 8.30 a.m. when Sri B. Tripathy, Additional CME/Project Officer, KOCP was on his way to attend his duty in Companys Car No. BRM 7584 you alongwith others forcibly stopped the said car at Jubilee Regional Hospital More. As soon as the said car was-stopped you alongwith Sri Babu Lal Manjhi, Ward Boy of JRH, Kedla Nagar and others dragged him out of the car and abused him in the following languages : SHALEY KO AAJ JAAN SE MARKAR FEK DENA HAI YEH SHALLA BARKA OFFICER BANTA HAI. Thereafter you alongwith others prostrated him on the ground and assaulted him with list, foot and iron rod severely. Due to this Sri B.R. Tripathy got severe internal injury and one of the ribs of Sri Tripathy was fractured." After conclusion of the departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found the charges proved against him and thereafter the Disciplinary Authority dismissed him from service by order dated 22.6.1996 contained in Annexure 2 to the writ application. 3. It is stated that the petitioner No. 2 was served with the charges contained in Annexure 1 dated 17.10.1995 for the following charges, which are quoted below :- "(i) While you were on duty in 1st Shift (6 a.m. to 2 p.m.) on 16.10.1995 you left your duty place at 8.15 a.m. after getting your attendance marked present in the attendance register, without any information or permission. (ii) That on 16.10.1995 at about 8.30 a.m. when Shri B.R. Tripathy, Additional CME/Projeot Officer, Kedla Opencast Project was on his way to attend his duty in companys car No. BRM-7584, you alongwith others forcefully stopped the said car at Jubilee Regional Hospital More. (ii) That on 16.10.1995 at about 8.30 a.m. when Shri B.R. Tripathy, Additional CME/Projeot Officer, Kedla Opencast Project was on his way to attend his duty in companys car No. BRM-7584, you alongwith others forcefully stopped the said car at Jubilee Regional Hospital More. As soon as the said car was stopped, you alongwith Sri Jai Prakash Singh, Loading/Dispatch clerk of Kuju Area alongwith others dragged him out of the Car and abused him in the following language : IS SAALE KO AAJ JAAN SE MAR KAR PHENK DENA HIA, YEH SAALA BARKA OFFICER BANTA HAI Thereafter you alongwith others prostrated him on the ground and assaulted him with fist, foot and Iron rod severely and tried to strangle him. Due to this Shri Tripathi got severe internal, injury and one of the ribs of Shri Tripathi was fractured." 4. The charges against the petitioner were also found to be proved in the departmental enquiry and then he was also dismissed from the service. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since these two petitioners, who were also tried by a criminal Court of law with regard to the occurrence for which departmental proceeding was initiated and by judgment dated 29.8.2002 i ST No, 179/1999-the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh acquitted these two petitioners and, therefore, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Anr. reported in AIR 1999 SC 1416 , they arc entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. 6. From perusal of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra) it appears that the Supreme Court has held that if the departmental proceeding and the criminal case are based on identical set of facts and the same witnesses were examined in the departmental proceeding as well as in the criminal case and then if the criminal Court acquits the accused then in that case the dismissal from service of those accused persons on the same set of charges ean be set aside. 7. 7. But in the present case neither it has been stated in the writ petition nor anything has been brought on record to show that the departmental proceeding and the criminal case against the petitioner were on the same set of facts and the witnesses who were examined during the departmental proceeding were the same witnesses in the criminal case also, 8. However, from perusal of the judgment of the trial Court acquitting the petitioners, it appears that the prosecution did not produce his witnesses during the trial and, therefore, the accused persons were acquitted whereas in the departmental proceeding the witnesses appeared and then the Enquiry Officer found the charges to be proved against the petitioner and, therefore, in my view the facts of the present case are absolutely different and. therefore, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bhart Gold Mines Ltd. and Anr. is not at all applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. Accordingly I find no merit in this writ application and as such the same is dismisseded.