Judgment ( 1. ) THE petitioner should be totally exonerated and should be reinstated with full back wages because he bas been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 409 IPC by the appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2003 decided on 5th August, 2004. The departmental enquiry holding the petitioner to be guilty is vitiated and deserves to be quashed because principle of natural justice was not taken into consideration and by not following the principle of natural justice, the petitioner has been held to be guilty of the charges. These are the two main grounds which have been vehemently argued by Shri Upadhyay, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. ( 2. ) IT is no more in dispute that at the relevant time the petitioner was serving on the post of Assistant Manager in Jain Mandir Gas Relief Extension Counter, Bhopal of the State Bank of India and was the custodian of the said Extension Counter. On a surprise checking it was found that rupees one lac was deficient and, therefore, an FIR was lodged in order to bring the criminal law in motion. The petitioner was prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 409 IPC which was found to be proved by the trial Court and eventually he was convicted, but, in appeal he was acquitted. In the judgment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the amount was not misappropriated by the petitioner in order to prove an offence punishable under Section 409 IPC, as a result of which the appeal was allowed and the petitioner was acquired. ( 3. ) EARLIER to the acquittal of the petitioner from the criminal Court a departmental enquiry was set-up against him and the charges were leveled against him which are mentioned in Annexure-P-1, and which read as under: Statement of Allegations While you were Working as Officer-in-Charge at Jain Mandir Gas Relief Extension Counter (under Hamidia Road (Bhopal) Branch), on 28. 4. 92, a shortage of Rs. 1,00 lac was found in the cash balance held in your sole custody, by the Branch Manager, Hamidia Road Branch, who carried out the surprise verification of the cash of the extension counter on that date. 4. 92, a shortage of Rs. 1,00 lac was found in the cash balance held in your sole custody, by the Branch Manager, Hamidia Road Branch, who carried out the surprise verification of the cash of the extension counter on that date. You, being the sole custodian of the cash of the Extension Counter and personally responsible for the correctness of the cash held in your single custody, failed to protect the Banks interests and the Bank has been saddled with a pecuniary loss of Rs. 1 lac. Articles of Charges You are charged with gross negligence in the performance of your duties unmindful of Banks interests. By failing to protect the Banks interests/cash, you have exhibited lack of devotion to duty. Your acts are unbecoming of a Bank official and contravene Rule No. 50 (4) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules governing your service in the Bank. Needless to emphasis the petitioner refuted the charges, as a result of which the Bank examined its departmental witnesses. Since the petitioner absented himself from the departmental enquiry, the enquiry was later on complete in ex-parte. The enquiry officer found the charges to be proved and sent its report to the disciplinary authority, The disciplinary authority vide its order Annex. P-2 found the charges to be proved on the basis of the material placed on record as well as on the basis of the evidence and hence vide order dated 19. 11. 1996 punished the petitioner by dismissing him from the service. ( 4. ) THE order of the disciplinary authority was assailed by the petitioner before the departmental appellate authority and the appellate authority dismissed the appeal and the order was communicated to the petitioner on 18. 4. 97 (Annex. P-4 ). Thereafter this petition has been filed before this Court. ( 5. ) THE submissions which are addressed by Shri Upadhyay, learned Counsel for the petitioner have already been mentioned hereinabove. The contention of the learned Counsel is that since the petitioner was acquitted by the criminal Court in appeal from the offence punishable under Section 409 IPC, therefore, the petitioner is liable to be reinstated and the matter should be remanded to the disciplinary authority to re-decide the case of the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel is that since the petitioner was acquitted by the criminal Court in appeal from the offence punishable under Section 409 IPC, therefore, the petitioner is liable to be reinstated and the matter should be remanded to the disciplinary authority to re-decide the case of the petitioner. In support of his contention, learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Single Bench of this Court in the case of Shantilal Jain v. State Bank of Indore, Indore 1998 M. P. L. S. R 105. It has also been put-forth by the learned Counsel that while conducting the departmental enquiry, the principle of natural justice was not followed and though the petitioner made demand to provide legal assistance like Advocate, the same was not permitted by the enquiry officer and therefore the departmental enquiry is vitiated. ( 6. ) PER contra, Shri Sujoy Paul, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the standard of proving a charge in the departmental enquiry is altogether different and merely because the petitioner has been acquitted by the criminal Court under Section 409 IPC, would not exonerate from the misconduct committed by him and which has been proved in the departmental enquiry. In support of his contention, two decisions of the Supreme Court have been placed reliance. They are Govind Das v. State of Bihar and Ors. (1997 )11 SCC361 and T. N. C. S. Corporation Ltd, and Ors. v. K. Meerabai (2006) 2 SCC 255 . It has also been set-forth by the learned Counsel that since the presenting officer was not a law knowing person, and was not a legal minded man, therefore, it was not necessary to provide an Advocate to the petitioner to defend his case and, therefore, it cannot be said that departmental enquiry was conducted dehors to the principle of natural justice. ( 7. ) AFTER hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be dismissed. ( 8. ) LOOKING to the Statement of Allegations and Articles of Charges it is gathered that the petitioner was gross negligent in the performance of his duties unmindful of Banks interests. He failed to protect Banks interests/cash and has exhibited lack of devotion to duty and his acts were unbecoming of a Bank official. ( 8. ) LOOKING to the Statement of Allegations and Articles of Charges it is gathered that the petitioner was gross negligent in the performance of his duties unmindful of Banks interests. He failed to protect Banks interests/cash and has exhibited lack of devotion to duty and his acts were unbecoming of a Bank official. The Statement of Allegations and the Articles of Charges against the petitioner is that while he was working as Officer-in-Charge at Jain Mandir Gas Relief Extension Counter (under Hamidia Road, Bhopal Branch) on 28. 4. 92, a shortage of rupees one lac was found in the cash balance and the petitioner was custodian of the said Branch. On surprise verification of the cash of the Extension Counter on that date an amount of rupees one lack was found to be short. The petitioner was personally responsible for the correctness of the cash held in his custody and thereby he has failed to protect the Banks interest, as a result of Which Bank has been saddled with a pecuniary loss of rupees one lac. ( 9. ) THE charge which has been leveled against the petitioner has been duly proved by the statement of departmental witnesses and overwhelming documentary evidence in that regard. On going through the enquiry proceedings it is gathered that the petitioner appeared earlier but later on remained absent as a result of which after adjourning the matter for some dates the decision was taken to hold the departmental enquiry in ex-parte. ( 10. ) IT has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was ill and was admitted in Jaslok Hospital at Bombay. For this reason he was unable to attend the proceedings of the departmental enquiry. At this juncture Shri Paul, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents invited my attention to Annexure-P-8 (a) which is a certificate of Jaslok Hospital and Research Centre dated 11. 10. 1994 wherein it has been certified that the petitioner will be fit to resume work from 1st November, 1994. It be seen that after this date petitioner appeared in the proceedings of departmental enquiry and thereafter he remained absent. True, the petitioner has submitted certain certificates of homeopath doctor, but it appears that looking to the facts and circumstances in order to avoid the departmental enquiry these certificates of private homeopath doctor were submitted. It be seen that after this date petitioner appeared in the proceedings of departmental enquiry and thereafter he remained absent. True, the petitioner has submitted certain certificates of homeopath doctor, but it appears that looking to the facts and circumstances in order to avoid the departmental enquiry these certificates of private homeopath doctor were submitted. Apart from, this decision to proceed exparte against the petitioner was taken only on 15. 7. 1995 and for this date there is no certificate on record in order to show that the petitioner was ill. In this view of the matter there is no substance in the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not afforded adequate opportunity to defend his case. ( 11. ) SO far as not providing legal assistance by providing an Advocate is concerned, suffice it to State that presenting officer was also a Bank employee and, therefore, since the presenting officer was not an Advocate, it was not necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case to provide an Advocate to the petitioner for his legal assistance. On bare perusal of the enquiry proceedings which are filed along with the petition (sic) in the return I am of the view that the departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner in accordance with law and thus the same cannot be said to be dehors the principle of natural justice. ( 12. ) SO far as acquittal of the petitioner subsequently by the criminal Court is concerned, in the decision of K. Meerabai (supra) it has been held by the Supreme Court that criminal case instituted against the delinquent in the Court of CJM was in respect of the offences under Section 409 IPC and falsification of accounts punishable under Section 477-A IPC whereas the delinquent of that case was charge in the departmental enquiry for failure to maintain prescribed records for issue of stock and for swindling the Corporation in collusion with the other members of the staff through misappropriation of stock and cash of the Corporation thereby causing huge loss to the Corporation to the tune of more than Rs. 9 lakhs. The view of this Court is that the facts as well as ratio decidendi of K. Meerabai (supra) is squarely applicable in the present case. 9 lakhs. The view of this Court is that the facts as well as ratio decidendi of K. Meerabai (supra) is squarely applicable in the present case. In the present case also the petitioner has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 409 IPC. In the present case also the Bank has been saddled with a pecuniary loss of rupees one lac. The petitioner was the sole custodian of the Branch and the cash. In paras 20 and 21 the apex Court has held as under: 20. She has lost sight of the fact that the criminal case instituted against the respondent in the Court of CJM was in respect of the offences under Section 409 IPC (criminal breach of trust) and falsification of accounts punishable under Section 477-A IPC whereas the respondent herein was charged in the departmental enquiry for her failure to maintain prescribed records for issue of stock and for swindling the Corporation in collusion with the other members of the staff through misappropriation of stock and cash of the Corporation thereby causing huge loss to the Corporation to the tune of more than Rs. 9 lakhs. 21. Similarly, the learned Single Judge was patently misconceived in reaching the conclusion that the acquittal of the respondent by the Court of CJM clinched the issue in the departmental enquiry, while losing sight of the well-settled law that the scope of criminal proceedings in the court of criminal law and the scope of disciplinary proceedings in a departmental enquiry are quote distinct and exclusive and independent. Since the ambit, scope and degree of proof of criminal case is altogether different and merely because the petitioner has been acquitted, it cannot be said that the charges cannot be said to be proved against him in the departmental enquiry and he is liable to be exonerated. Since the ambit, scope and degree of proof of criminal case is altogether different and merely because the petitioner has been acquitted, it cannot be said that the charges cannot be said to be proved against him in the departmental enquiry and he is liable to be exonerated. The decision of Govind Das (supra) is also applicable in the present case because in that case also there was acquittal of appellant in criminal proceedings and the Supreme Court categorical held that since the standard of proof required to prove a charge of misconduct in departmental proceedings is not the same as that required to prove a criminal charge, the acquittal of the appellant in the criminal case cannot be made the basis for setting aside the order for dismissal of the services of the appellant passed in the disciplinary proceedings on the basis of evidence adduced in the departmental inquiry. ( 13. ) IN view of above said two decisions of the Supreme Court, I am not adverting my mind to the decision of Shantilal Jain (supra) passed by Single Bench of this Court. ( 14. ) FOR the reasons stated hereinabove, I do not find any merit in this petition, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.