Judgment :- R. Banumathi, J. Challenge in this Writ Appeal is to the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.16028/2000, confirming the impugned Order imposing compulsory retirement. .2. Brief facts which gave rise to the present appeal are as follows :- .Appellant was working as Assistant in the office of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission [TNPSC], Chennai. The Central Crime Branch, Egmore, registered a complaint preferred by one K.Selvaraj of Tiruvannamalai District in X.Cr.No.494/91 under Section 420 IPC against the appellant. When the criminal case was under investigation, the appellant was placed under suspension from 112. 1992. The allegation was that the said Selvaraj, a candidate who appeared for Group IV written Examination conducted by TNPSC in 1986, had acquaintance with the appellant and another staff Ponnusamy, said to be relative of the appellant. The appellant and the said Ponnusamy are alleged to have made false promise of securing a post of Junior Assistant in Group IV services to the said Selvaraj for a consideration of Rs.10,000/-and are alleged to have received a sum of Rs.5,000/-. 3. Charge memo was issued to the appellant and the appellant submitted his written statement of defence. After having examined the explanation of the appellant along with records of the case, the Inquiry Officer held all three charges as not proved. However, after examining the case thoroughly, taking into account all aspects, Disciplinary Authority held the charges framed against the appellant as proved. Reasons for disagreement of the findings of the Inquiry Officer were communicated to the appellant on 212. 1997 along with copy of Inquiry Report and the appellant was called upon to submit his further written statement of defence and the appellant had submitted his further explanation. After perusing the records, Secretary TNPSC held all the charges as proved and for the proven charges, punishment of Compulsory Retirement from service was imposed upon the appellant. 2/3rd of both the pension and Death cum Retirement Gratuity eligible to him was ordered to be paid to the appellant. By proceedings dated 21.08.1989, the same punishment, viz., Compulsory Retirement was imposed on the co-delinquent, K.Ponnusamy. The appeal preferred before the Appellate Authority viz., Chairman, TNPSC was rejected as devoid of merits, on 22.05.2000. .4. Challenging the disciplinary proceedings and the quantum of punishment, the appellant has filed the Writ Petition. By proceedings dated 21.08.1989, the same punishment, viz., Compulsory Retirement was imposed on the co-delinquent, K.Ponnusamy. The appeal preferred before the Appellate Authority viz., Chairman, TNPSC was rejected as devoid of merits, on 22.05.2000. .4. Challenging the disciplinary proceedings and the quantum of punishment, the appellant has filed the Writ Petition. By the impugned Order dated 24.03.2003, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition confirming the order of compulsory retirement imposed upon the appellant. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that when the Inquiry Officer has clearly held that the charges are not proved, the Disciplinary Authority erred in differing from the findings of fact. The learned Counsel mainly urged that the criminal case registered against the appellant ended in acquittal and applying Paul Anthonys case, reported in AIR 1999 SC 1416 , the appellant ought to have been reinstated with back wages. Placing reliance upon 2006 (3) CTC 494, the learned Counsel further submitted that once the criminal case ends in acquittal, authorities ought to have reinstated the appellant and there is no reason to uphold the dismissal. The learned Counsel also urged that two fold punishment has been imposed upon the appellant viz., Compulsory Retirement and also deduction of 2/3rd of both pension and Death cum Retirement Gratuity [DCRG, for short]. Punishment and the punishment being disproportionate, ought to be interfered with. 6. The learned Standing Counsel for TNPSC contended that when the rules required an opportunity to be given to the delinquent and when the Disciplinary Authority differs from the findings of the Inquiry Officer, after affording opportunity to the appellant, the Disciplinary Authority was well within the prescribed rules in taking a different view and imposing punishment for proven charges. The Standing Counsel further submitted that TNPSC being a recruitment agency, utmost integrity is expected of its staff members and for proven charges of gratification, the Department has only taken a lenient view by imposing compulsory retirement and the same cannot be interfered with. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions. In the light of contentions, we are required to determine whether appellant ought to have been reinstated applying Paul Anthonys case. Yet another point falling for consideration is, whether ordering that the appellant would be paid 2/3rd of both pension and DCRG, amounts to double punishment, calling for interference. 8. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions. In the light of contentions, we are required to determine whether appellant ought to have been reinstated applying Paul Anthonys case. Yet another point falling for consideration is, whether ordering that the appellant would be paid 2/3rd of both pension and DCRG, amounts to double punishment, calling for interference. 8. The position in law relating to acquittal in criminal case and its effect on Departmental proceedings and reinstatement in service has been dealt with by the Supreme Court in various cases. 9. In Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., AIR 1999 SC 1416 : 1999 (3) SCC 679 , P was a security Officer in a Government Company. A raid was conducted at his residence and gold ball and gold-bearing sand were recovered. He was prosecuted and also departmentally dealt with. In criminal trial, he was acquitted but was found guilty in departmental proceedings and was dismissed. 10. P contended that since criminal prosecution had been launched against him, departmental enquiry ought to have been stayed, but it was not done. In any case, as he was acquitted by a competent criminal Court, he was entitled to reinstatement in service. Though the single Judge allowed the Petition, the Division Bench set aside the order. P approached the Supreme Court. 11. Ratio of Paul Anthonys case can be culled out from para 22 of the Judgment which reads as follows :- "22. The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are: (i)Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. (ii)If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. (iii)Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge-sheet. (iii)Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge-sheet. (iv)The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. (v)If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest." 12. In Paul Anthonys case, charges framed against P were sought to be proved by Police Officers and Panch Witnesses who had raided the house of P and had effected recovery. They were the only witnesses examined by the Inquiry Office and the Inquiry Officer, relying upon their statements came to the conclusion that charges were established against the appellant. In the light of the factual matrix of the case i.e. some witnesses were examined in criminal case, as well as Inquiry Officer, the Supreme Court has made the above wider observations in paragraph 22 of the Judgment. .13. No doubt Paul Anthonys case was followed in the decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant in 2006(3) CTC 494 [G.M.Tank v. State of Gujarat and another], wherein the Supreme Court has held as follows:- ."25. It is also to be noticed the judicial pronouncement was made after a regular trial and on hot contest. Under these circumstances, it would be unjust and unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded in the departmental proceedings to stand. In our opinion, such facts and evidence in the department as well as criminal proceedings were the same without there being any iota of difference, the appellant should succeed. Under these circumstances, it would be unjust and unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded in the departmental proceedings to stand. In our opinion, such facts and evidence in the department as well as criminal proceedings were the same without there being any iota of difference, the appellant should succeed. The distinction which is usually proved between the departmental and criminal proceedings on the basis of the approach and burden of proof would not be applicable in the instant case. Though finding recorded in the domestic enquiry was found to be valid by the Courts below, when there was an honourable acquittal of the employee during the pendency of the proceedings challenging the dismissal, the same requires to be taken note of and the decision in Paul Anthonys case (supra) will apply. We therefore, hold that the Appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed." 14. In G.M.Tanks case, (cited supra), departmental proceedings and criminal case are based on identical and the similar set of facts and the charge in the Departmental case and the charge before the criminal Court were one and the same. Basis of evidence and materials collected against the appellant during inquiry, and investigation witnesses and circumstances were one and the same. The Honble Supreme Court has applied Paul Anthonys case. We are of the view the case in hand is clearly distinguishable on facts. .15. Acquittal of criminal case and consequential reinstatement is not automatic. In various decisions, the Supreme Court has taken the view that Paul Anthonys case could be applied only upon facts of each case. In 2006(6) SCC 366 [Uttaranchal Road Transport Corporation and ors. v. Mansaram Nainwal], Uttranchal RTC bus met with an accident. After finding the driver guilty in domestic inquiry, the Transport Corporation terminated the services of the driver. Placing reliance upon Paul Anthonys case, the High Court directed reinstatement on the ground that in criminal trial, the delinquent driver was acquitted. Setting aside the order of the High Court, in 2006(6) SCC 366 [Uttaranchal Road Transport Corporation and ors. v. Mansaram Nainwal], observing that each case presents its own features and governed by particular facts of the case, the Supreme Court held as follows :- ."13. The High Court unfortunately did not discuss the factual aspects and by merely placing reliance on an earlier decision of the Court held that reinstatement was mandated. v. Mansaram Nainwal], observing that each case presents its own features and governed by particular facts of the case, the Supreme Court held as follows :- ."13. The High Court unfortunately did not discuss the factual aspects and by merely placing reliance on an earlier decision of the Court held that reinstatement was mandated. Reliance on the decision without looking into the factual background of the case before it is clearly impermissible. A decision is a precedent on its own facts. Each case presents its own features." 16. Reference in this connection may be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in Ajit Kumar v. Indian Oil Corporation [ 2005 (7) SCC 764 : 2005 SCC (L& S) 1020]. In that case, in exercise of power under the Standing Orders of the Corporation, an employee was dismissed from service. He was, however, acquitted by a Criminal Court in a case instituted against him. He, therefore, contended that after acquittal, he was entitled to reinstatement with full back wages. 17. Negativing the argument and explaining the scope of criminal prosecution and departmental enquiry, C.K.Thakker, J. stated : "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 of the offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with service Rules. In a criminal trial, an incriminating statement made by the accused in certain circumstances or before certain offenders 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 appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. 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 appreciation 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 enquiry, 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. [Id. at P.776 (SCC). See also Meerabai v. State of Tamil Nadu 2006(2) SCC 255 ]." .18. The learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the nature of charges and materials relied upon both in criminal case and departmental proceedings are one and the same and in such view of the matter, once the criminal case has ended in acquittal, applying Paul Anthonys case, appellant is entitled to be reinstated. The charge against the appellant is receiving illegal gratification of Rs.5,000/- on false assurance that he would get the complainant Selvaraj, a post of Junior Assistant in Grade IV 1986 recruitment. Another charge framed against the appellant is that he has indulged in corrupt practice of receiving gratification of Rs.5,000/- and the third charge is bringing disrepute to TNPSC by getting illegal gratification for personal gains whereas, criminal case in Cr.No.494/1991 was registered under Section 420 IPC for cheating the complainant Selvaraj by making a false promise of securing a job in TNPSC. Two proceedings – Departmental and criminal proceedings are entirely different in nature. The nature of charges are conceptually different and they operate in different fields and they have different objectives. Two proceedings – Departmental and criminal proceedings are entirely different in nature. The nature of charges are conceptually different and they operate in different fields and they have different objectives. It cannot be said that the basis of evidence and witnesses and circumstances are one and the same both in criminal prosecution and Departmental proceedings, as held in Paul Anthonys case and G.M.Tanks case. .19. As rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant was employed in Recruiting Agency, where highest degree of integrity is expected of its staff members. Any proved charge of corruption has to be dealt with iron hand. The learned Single Judge has observed as follows :- ."Therefore, unless any such attempts by the person employed in such organization are weeded out with an iron hand, such cancerous infection can grow to an uncontrollable extent which will become totally incurable and ultimately result in the total collapse of the main institution itself. Therefore, when such instance comes to the knowledge of the Disciplinary Authorities, instead of attempting to rely on technicalities and merely allow the culprits to go scot free, it would be better and safe to weed out such elements from gaining any strong foothold. ... It would not only be highly detrimental to the interest of the society but, it would be highly unsafe to interfere with such a conclusion of the disciplinary authority on technical grounds such as the acquittal by the criminal Court etc." .20. Though the charge of receiving illegal gratification was proved, as rightly submitted by the Standing Counsel for the respondent, TNPSC has taken a lenient view in imposing only the punishment of Compulsory Retirement. In service matters, the scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision making process and not the decision itself. Unless the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authorities or Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the Court, there is no scope for interference. In B.C. Chaturvedi V.Union of India [1996 I LLJ 1231] it was observed : ."A review of the above legal position would establish that the Disciplinary Authority, and on appeal the Appellate Authority, being fact-finding authorities, have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment, keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment, keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the Disciplinary/Appellate Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof". 21. The Disciplinary Authority has recorded his reasonings for differing from the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the reasons for such disagreement was also furnished to the appellant who has submitted his further explanation. We are convinced that the findings of punishment of compulsory retirement cannot be said to be disproportionate and the same cannot be interfered with. We find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. 22. The next contention urged is that the order directing payment of 2/3rd of pension and DCRG and deduction of 1/3rd of pension and DCRG amounts to double punishment. Drawing our attention to Rule 9 of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, the learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the procedure is contemplated under Rule 9 for withholding pension and submitted that there cannot be cut in pension by way of penalty. .23. We are unable to countenance the above contention since this point was not raised in the Writ Petition as well as in the grounds of appeal. This point also does not seem to have been urged before the learned Single Judge. That apart, when a Government servant is compulsorily retired from service, as per Rule 39 of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, penalty may be imposed by the Authority competent to impose such penalty of both pension or gratuity or both at a rate not less than 2/3rds. Rule 39 reads as under :- ."39.Compulsory retirement pension :-(1) A Government Servant compulsorily retired from service as a penalty may be granted by the authority competent to impose such penalty, pension or gratuity, or both at a rate not less than two-thirds and not more than full compensation pension or gratuity or both admissible to him on the date of his compulsory retirement". 24. 24. We are of the view that it was well within the purview of the Disciplinary Authority to impose such penalty of pension or gratuity or both at the time of imposing punishment of compulsory retirement. When there is no violation of Pension Rules, order directing payment of 2/3rd of eligible pension and DCRG cannot be interfered with. 25. We find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge and accordingly the appeal is dismissed.