Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-Instant petition has been filed against order dated 212.1989 (Annexure 8) whereby petitioner was dismissed from service after holding inquiry under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,1958 ("CCA Rules") and appeal against dismissal was also rejected vide order 23.08.1990 (Annexure11). 2. Facts, in brief are that petitioner was appointed as Constable on 15.08.1984 and while posted at Police Station Bari, criminal case was registered against him for committing theft in house of one Vinod Kumar in night of 011.1988 and after he proceeded on 3 days casual leave from 18.07.1988 and was supposed to report back on duty on 21.07.1988 but without making any intimation or prior permission from authority, he remained wilful absent for more than 49 days. For aforesaid acts, he was served with charge-sheet imputing charges vide memo dated 16.03.1989 (Annexure 5) under Rule 16 of CCA Rules. He submitted reply to the charge-sheet. Competent authority appointed Police Circle Officer, Shri Yashpal Sharma, as Inquiry Officer vide order dated 11.04.1989, but before he could submit his report of inquiry, he was transferred, therefore, his successor in office considered material on record of inquiry, and submitted inquiry report holding petitioner guilty of imputed charges, which were found proved. Disciplinary authority after taking note of record of inquiry concurred with finding of guilt recorded by inquiry officer, inflicted penalty of dismissal from service vide order dated 212.1989 (Annexure 8), against which he preferred appeal under Rule 23 of CCA Rules -that too was rejected by appellate authority vide order 23.08.1990 (Annexure 11). Hence, this petition. 3. Counsel for petitioner contends that after petitioner was dismissed from service, he was acquitted of offence in criminal case, as such very premise on which he was held to be guilty in inquiry, does not hold good and in view of his acquitted by competent Court of jurisdiction, very punishment of dismissal from service deserves to be set aside and in support of his contention, Counsel placed reliance on decision of Apex Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., AIR 1999 SC 1416 . 4. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., AIR 1999 SC 1416 . 4. Counsel further contends that Yashpal Sharma was appointed as inquiry officer by name and without any fresh order appointing his successor in office as inquiry officer, he submitted inquiry report to disciplinary authority, which was in clear violation of Rule 16(4) of CCA Rules and finding recorded by officer who was not authorized by disciplinary authority is not legally sustainable. Counsel also contends that Superintendent of police was not disciplinary authority as such very order passed by him is beyond authority and competence. In this regard, Counsel relied upon decision of this Court in Harish Chander vs. State of Rajasthan, 2002 (5) SLR 253 (Raj.). Here I may clarify that petitioner has not disputed that Superintendent of Police is his appointing authority and under whose orders, he was appointed as Constable while entering into service. 5. Counsel further urged that before passing order of dismissal from service, copy of inquiry report was also not supplied to him which has caused serious prejudice and that apart, once period of absence was regularised it cannot be construed to be cause of misconduct and in such circumstances, very finding holding charge of wilful absence proved and passing punishment impugned, is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. 6. Respondentsin their reply contradicted averments of writ petition. Counsel for respondents urged that Superintendent of Police is appointing authority of petitioner, under whose orders he was appointed and the charge-sheet was served upon him and the SP is competent to pass order of dismissal from service under CCA Rules, and in terms of notification dated 212.1985 Superintendent of Police has been delegated power of disciplinary authority under Rule 15(1) of Rules, 1956. Counsel also contends that copy of inquiry report was not required to be supplied to the petitioner as it was not required under Scheme of CCA Rules when impugned order of dismissal was passed on 212.1989; and the Judgment on which Counsel for petitioner placed reliance in Union of India vs. Ramzankhan, AIR 1991 SC 471 , wherein it was made obligatory for authority to supply copy of inquiry report, was decided on 20.11.1990, as such no error was committed and there was no requirement under law to supply copy of inquiry report to petitioner. 7. 7. Counsel for respondents further submitted that so far as proceedings initiated in criminal case and so also departmental inquiry are on different footing and after holding regular inquiry, considering material on record, charges were found proved and if petitioner is acquitted in criminal case at later stage will not hold decision of disciplinary authority to be bad in law. As regards appointment of inquiry officer, Counsel for respondents contends that inquiry officer is only a fact finding officer who collects material and submits his report and it is the disciplinary authority to apply its mind under Rule 16(9) of CCA Rules; as such in case of Yashpal Sharma who was appointed as inquiry officer was transferred and his successor in office has submitted inquiry report, which in no manner caused prejudice to petitioner and so far as period of absence is concerned, merely because it was regularized that will not absolve him from misconduct which he committed of wilful absence from duty. 8. I have considered rival contentions of Counsel for the parties and with their assistance examined material on record. This fact has not been disputed that Superintendent of Police is the appointing authority under Rule 12 of CCA Rules and under whose orders petitioner was initially appointed as Constable and who had issued impugned charge-sheet; and services conditions of petitioner as Constable are regulated in accordance with Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989. Appointing authority of Constable is the District Superintendent of Police as is evident from Rule 2 of Rules, 1989 which reads as under: "2. ( a) "Appointing authority" means- (iii) for the posts of Assistant Sub-inspectors/Head Constables & Constables in Rule 4, Sections I, II & IV - The Superintendent of Police/Commandant or an officer of the equivalent rank." and once the Government vide its notification dated 212.1985 was delegated its power to Superintendent of Police as its disciplinary authority under Rule 15(1) of the Rules. Judgment on which the Counsel has placed reliance in Harish Chander vs. State of Rajasthan (Supra), notification issued by Government dated 212.1985 by which power was delegated to Superintendent of Police, has not been brought to the notice of this Court, hence is of no assistance to him. 9. As regards acquittal in criminal case, it is sufficient to say that approach and objective in criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings are altogether distinct and different. 9. As regards acquittal in criminal case, it is sufficient to say that approach and objective in criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings are altogether distinct and different. Standard of proof , mode of enquiry and the rules governing enquiry and trial are conceptually different. In disciplinary enquiry technical rules of evidence & doctrine of proof beyond doubt have no application. Preponderance of probabilities and some material on record are sufficient to arrive at the conclusion whether or not the delinquent committed misconduct. Mere discharge/ acquittal in criminal cases will not in my opinion preclude the department from holding disciplinary inquiry and take action after affording due opportunity of hearing to the delinquent under CCA Rules. 10. In my opinion after deducing evidence-documentary and otherwise also, both the authorities have found imputed charges proved and apart from allegation of theft in criminal case, there was also charge imputed of wilful absence from duty for about 49 days and this was not subject matter of inquiry in criminal case in such circumstances, submission made by Counsel for petitioner has no substance. 11. So far as non-supply of copy of inquiry report is concerned suffice to say that copy of inquiry report was required to be supplied in cases where the penalty was inflicted upon delinquent after 20.11.1990 and that apart, as held by Apex Court in M.D.ECIL, Hyderabad vs. B.Karunakar, AIR1994 SC 1074, the law laid down by Apex Court in Union of India vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan (Supra) has been held to be prospective and would be applicable only from the date of Judgment viz. 20.10.1990, and even otherwise, in the case at hand, petitioner has failed to show as to what prejudice has been caused to him due to non-supply of copy of inquiry report. In the absence of whereof , mere non-supply of copy of documents/inquiry report will not hold action of disciplinary authority to be bad in law. 12. As regards appointment of inquiry officer is concerned, Rule 16(4) of CCA Rules only provides that either disciplinary authority, himself or it may appoint inquiry officer to inquire into imputed charges against delinquent and inquiry officer is only fact finding officer and ultimate decision has to be taken on the basis of report of inquiry by disciplinary authority in terms of Rule 16 (9) of CCA Rules. In my opinion, no prejudice has been caused to petitioner by officer who was asked to work as inquiry officer and to submit his report. 13. Last contention about regularisation of wilful absence period in question, in my opinion, is totally misconceived. Mere passing of order for regularisation of the period under Rule 54 of RSR will not in any manner absolve petitioner/delinquent from imputed charge of wilful absence which too was found proved by inquiry officer after affording him opportunity of hearing in course of regular inquiry, with which disciplinary authority also concurred while infliction of impugned penalty of dismissal from service. 14. I have carefully gone through impugned orders and find that the disciplinary as also appellate authority have taken pains to carefully examine entire record of inquiry and the decision to inflict impugned punishment is duly supported by material in evidence on record and I do not find any error in the findings recorded by authority while holding petitioner guilty of imputed charges, which may lead to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. 15. Lookingto nature of charges proved in course of inquiry and affirmed by disciplinary as also appellate authority, and keeping in view services rendered by him in disciplined police force, I do not find any error in the impugned punishment inflicted which cannot be said to be disproportionate at all. That apart, scope of judicial review in matters of disciplinary inquiry being restricted, this Court has to consider challenge to the impugned order with a limited degree of scrutiny being called for. 16. Consequently, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.