S. R. ALAM AND SUDHIR AGARWAL, JJ. ( 1 ) THIS Intra-Court appeal, under the Rules of the Court, has been filed against the judgment and order dated 28. 7. 1999 passed by the Honble Single Judge dismissing the petitioner-appellants (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) C. M. writ petition No. 30958 of 1599. ( 2 ) THE facts, in brief, giving rise to the present dispute is that the petitioner-appellant was working as Godown-keeper in UP. Co-operative Federation Ltd. , Lucknow. On certain charges of misconduct, a charge-sheet was issued to. him on 5. 12. 1983 which was replied by him on 26. 12. 1983. After conducting oral inquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted report on 30. 3. 1984 holding certain charges proved against him and in respect to some of the charges it was observed that since criminal proceedings are pending in a Court of law, therefore, no finding is recorded as the same may influence pending proceedings in the Court of Law. Based on findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority on 28th November, 1984 proposing punishment of dismissal and also recovery of Rs. 1,26,636. 84. The petitioner submitted reply to the said show cause notice. The disciplinary authority by the order dated 18. 6. 1999, impugned in the writ petition imposed punishment of dismissal and recovery of Rs. 1,20,636. 84 from the petitioner. The aforesaid punishment was imposed after obtaining approval from the UP. Co-operative Institutional Service Board (hereinafter referred to the board ). ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant sought to assail before us the impugned judgment of the Honble Single Judge on two grounds. Firstly, that the copy of enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner and, therefore proceedings are illegal tn view of the Apex Court decision rendered in Union of India and others v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, 1990 (61) FLR 736 (SC), Secondly, that since a criminal case is already pending in respect to charges 8, 9 and 10, simultaneous disciplinary proceedings could not be held and, therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiating in law. It is contended that the Honble Single Judge having failed to consider the aforesaid aspects of the matter has erred in law therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set. aside and writ petition is liable to be heard afresh on merits. It is contended that the Honble Single Judge having failed to consider the aforesaid aspects of the matter has erred in law therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set. aside and writ petition is liable to be heard afresh on merits. ( 4 ) HAVING given bur serious thoughts to the issues raised by learned Counsel for the appellant, we, are not in agreement with the contention advanced by him. Coming to the first submission, admittedly, enquiry report was submitted or 30. 3. 1984 and show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 28. 11. 1984. It paragraph 17 of the writ petition it is stated that the petitioner was suppling the copy of enquiry report whereof, he submitted his reply. In the circumstances, the submission that copy of enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner is prima facie incorrect and contrary to the pleadings as is evident from paragraph 17 of the writ petition: Moreover, the law laid down by the Apex Court in Mohd. Ramzan Khan (supra) has no application in the present case since the enquiry proceedings are of the period held prior to 20. 11. 1990 and the Apex Court in Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar, 1993 (67) FLR 1230 (SC), has clearly held that the law laid down by the Apex Court in Mohd. Ramzan Khan (supra) would be applicable prospectively, namely, only to those matters where punishment orders and subsequent to the judgment of Ramzan Khan (supra) and those which are of the period prior to Mohd. Ramzan Khan (supra) would not be covered by the said decision. ( 5 ) SO far as the second aspect of the matter is concerned, we find that there is no bar in holding simultaneous-departmental proceedings with criminal case. The scope of departmental and criminal proceeding is totally different. In criminal case, Court try an accused for alleged violation of law, which is declared by the legislature to be an offence against the society and to punish the guilty person. However, in departmental proceeding the procedure and scope is totally different inasmuch as the delinquent employee is charged to show an act which is unbecoming of a Government Servant or otherwise constitute a misconduct making him misfit to continue in the office which he was holding or render him. liable for any other penalty provided in the Rules or service condition. 6. liable for any other penalty provided in the Rules or service condition. 6. The Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. B. K. Meena and others, 1996 (74) FLR 2550 (SC) held that both the proceedings may "go on simultaneously. Similar view was expressed in Depot Manager A. P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Mohd. Yusuf Miya and Others, 1997 (77) FLR 9 (SC), and Cap. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another, 1999 (82) FLR 627 (SC), explaining difference of scope of criminal case and departmental proceedings. In Suresh v. Paihrella Oriental Bank of Commerce, 2006 (111) FLR 898 (SC) it has been observed that the yardstick and standard of proof in a criminal case is different from disciplinary proceeding and, therefore, cannot be read to explain a proposition that pendency of criminal case would be a bar for drawing up a disciplinary proceeding. Similar view was expressed earlier also in Ajit Kumar Nag v. General Manager (P -. J) v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. , Haldia and others, 2005 (107) FLR 407 (SC) and Chairman-cum-Managing Director TNCS Corporation Ltd. V. K. Meera Bhai. 2006 (108) FLR 940 (SC ). 7. Moreover, the petitioner was holding an office of trust i. e. Godown Keeper. Huge stock was under his custody, and, it was found that he was guilty of loss of stock unauthorizedly for which recovery was to be made from him. Such act of the petitioner, in. our view, constitute a serious misconduct and adverse appropriate punishment. In Regional Manager U. P. S. R. T. C Etawah v. Hoti Lal and others, 2003 (96) FLR 1076 (SC): AIR 2003 SC 1462 the Apex Court in paragraph 10 of the judgment held "if the charged employees holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial, transactions or acts in fiduciary capacity, highest degree of integrity and trust worthiness is must and exceptionable. " Similar observations were reiterated in respect to Bank Employees in Chairman and Managing Director United Commercial Bank and others v. P. C. Kakkar, 2003 (96) FLR 1067 (SC ).- 8. " Similar observations were reiterated in respect to Bank Employees in Chairman and Managing Director United Commercial Bank and others v. P. C. Kakkar, 2003 (96) FLR 1067 (SC ).- 8. Besides other charges, it has been found proved that the petitioner was found responsible for deficiency in stock and the. said deficiency was held to be on account of the petitioners involvement and, therefore, for the same he was liable to make deficiency good. Both the charges show that the petitioner did not maintain the standard of honesty and integrity upto required degree and, therefore, it cannot be said that he has been wrongly implicated or punishment is not just and invalid. In the result, we do not find any error in the order of punishment and, therefore, the Honbie Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. The appeal, therefore, |acks merit and is dismissed. Appeal Dismissed. .