Judgment 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 06.05.2004 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2885/2002 dismissing the writ petition of the appellant. The appellant had filed the writ petition challenging the order of disciplinary authority dismissing him from service in a departmental proceeding and that of the appellate authority affirming the same. 2. The departmental proceeding was initiated against the appellant on the charge that he had contracted second marriage during the life time of his first wife without taking permission from the Government. At the inquiry which followed, witnesses, including the first wife, were examined. On consideration of the materials on record the inquiry officer found that the charge was proved. Agreeing with the report the disciplinary authority awarded the penalty of dismissal from service. 3. Shri B.N. Kala appearing for the appellant submitted that a criminal case had also been instituted against the appellant on the same charge in which he was acquitted. The Court recorded a finding that the allegation that the appellant had contracted second marriage during life time of first wife was not proved. Counsel submitted that where disciplinary proceeding and criminal proceeding are based on same set of facts and the employee is acquitted of the charge in the criminal case he cannot be held guilty of similar charge in the departmental proceeding. In support of the submission reliance was placed on Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr., AIR 1996 SC 1416. Counsel also submitted that the first wife has affirmed an affidavit, copy whereof was enclosed as Annexure 6 to the writ petition wherein she did not support her complaint version about the appellant marrying second wife. 4. It is relevant to mention here that the order of dismissal from service in the instant case was passed on 210.1999 whereas the order of acquittal was passed on 23.09.2003. The affidavit of the first wife referred to above was affirmed on 14.09.1999 i.e., when the final order was about to be passed in the departmental proceeding. As indicated above, the first wife was examined as witness in the departmental enquiry and she fully supported her complaint. The appellant had opportunity to cross-examine her. In the circumstances not much reliance can be placed on affidavit. 5. As indicated above, the first wife was examined as witness in the departmental enquiry and she fully supported her complaint. The appellant had opportunity to cross-examine her. In the circumstances not much reliance can be placed on affidavit. 5. The order of acquittal cannot be employed as a ground for re-instatement unless the dismissal was based on conviction in the criminal case. Where the employee is dismissed from service as a measure of penalty in a departmental proceeding on the basis of evidence collected in the enquiry, the subsequent order of acquittal can be of no avail to him. 6. Power of judicial review does not extend to finding out correctness of the decision. While making judicial review the Court can only see whether there is any error in the decision making process. In other words, this Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority. No violation of the statutory rules in conducting the proceeding or rules of natural justice has been pointed out so as to vitiate the inquiry. 7. The proposition that where the employee is acquitted in a criminal case he cannot be held guilty in departmental proceeding, is not a rule of universal application. The case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (Supra), was decided on its own facts. Whether departmental proceeding should be initiated after conclusion of the criminal case, or simultaneously, or not at all, are questions which would depend on facts and circumstances of the particular case. It need hardly be pointed out that the tests in criminal case are different from those in disciplinary proceeding. Whereas prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal case, in disciplinary proceedings charge can be held to be proved on probabilities. We are thus of the opinion that the appellant cannot draw any support from the decision in the criminal case. 8. In the result, we find no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed.