MANJU GOEL, J. ( 1 ) THE writ petition is directed against the award of prerecording Officer, Labour Court-III in the 'dispute between the management of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and its workman- Mr. Ramesh Chander Sharma. The award reinstated the workman, the respondent no. 1 herein, with full back wages and continuity, in service after setting aside his dismissal which was ordered after an enquiry Into allegations of mis-conduct. The respondent, who was a Com-pounder and subsequently promoted as a Vaid by the commissioner of the petitioner/management, was charge-sheeted on' 1. 5. 1975 for trying to outrage the Modesty of an indoor female patient, Smt. Ram Rati. The respondent was also tried by the court of Sessions for the same offence and was eventually acquitted. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the report of the domestic enquiry could not be sustained in view of the fact that the workman had been acquitted by the criminal court and this acquittal had not been taken into account by the enquiry officer. He also observed that rules of natural Justice were violated as the copy of the preliminary enquiry report had not been supplied to the workman. ( 2 ) IN the case of Ajit Kumar Nag Vs. General manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Haldia and Ors. 2005 (VIII) AD (S. C.) 161 = v vii. (2005) SLT 202, the Supreme Court in paragraph-12 held as under:"12. As far as acquittal of the appellant by a Criminal Court is concerned, in our opinion, the said order does not preclude the Corporation from taking an action if it is otherwise permissible. In our judgment, the law is fairly well settled. Acquittal by a Criminal Court would not debar an employer from exercising power in accordance with rules and Regulations in force. The two proceedings -criminal and departmental- are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on offender, the purpose of inquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose. Penalty In accordance with service Rules. In a criminal trial, incriminating statement made by the accused in certain circumstances or before certain officers, is totally inadmissible, in evidence. Such strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental proceedings. Penalty In accordance with service Rules. In a criminal trial, incriminating statement made by the accused in certain circumstances or before certain officers, is totally inadmissible, in evidence. Such strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental proceedings. The degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency. The rule relating to approbation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused "beyond reasonable doubt', he cannot be convicted 'by a Court of law. In departmental inquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of "preponderance of probability'. Acquittal of the appellant by a Judicial Magistrate, therefore, does not ipso facto: absolve him from the liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Corporation. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the contention of the appellant that since he was acquitted by a Criminal Court the impugned order dismissing him from service deserves to be quashed and set aside. " ( 3 ) SINCE the domestic enquiry was different from a Session's trial and since the standard of proof required in a domestic enquiry is different and less stringent than the standard of proof required for a Session's trial, a domestic enquiry can and into 9 finding of guilt even if on the same evidence a court of sessions may return a verdict of acquittal. Therefore, the opinion of the Labour. Court that the domestic enquiry could not have ended against the workman because of His acquittal in the Tribunal case is not quite correct. ( 4 ) SO far as the second objection of the labour Court regarding the violation of principles of natural justice is concerned, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Nigam (dead) through lrs Vs. State of M. P. and others (1996)11 SCC 599 is cited. In this case also one of the grounds for challenge of the departmental enquiry was that preliminary enquiry conducted against the Government servant e ore Initiating departmental enquiry was not supplied to him and, therefore, it was violative of the principles of natural justice. This contention was rejected by the High Court. In this case also one of the grounds for challenge of the departmental enquiry was that preliminary enquiry conducted against the Government servant e ore Initiating departmental enquiry was not supplied to him and, therefore, it was violative of the principles of natural justice. This contention was rejected by the High Court. High Court's view found favour with the supreme Court. The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced below:"3. Two grounds have been pressed for consideration in the High Court and reiterated In the appeal. The main ground was that the report of the preliminary' enquiry conducted against him before initiating departmental enquiry, was net supplied to him and, therefore, it is violative of the principle of natural justice. The High Court has rejected the contention and, in our view, quite rightly. The preliminary report is only to decide and assess whether it would be necessary to take any disciplinary action against the delinquent officer and it does not form any' foundation for passing the order of dismissal against the employee. " ( 5 ) THEREFORE, this ground for setting aside the order of dismissal also has to be discredited. With these two points decided against the respondent, there is nothing on the basis of which the impugned Award dated 6. 5. 1991, can be sustained. ( 6 ) IN the result, the writ petition succeeds. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned award is set aside. The original order of dismissal is upheld.