ORDER The present writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs:- (i) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 25.7.02 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Railway (Respondent No.3 herein) by which the petitioner was dismissed from service and for quashing the order dated 4.7.03 passed by the Appellate Authority, respondent No.3 herein. (ii) For a direction to the respondents authority to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits in accordance with law. 2. The facts, in brief, are set out as under:- The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in December, 1983 in the district of Patna and thereafter performed his duty having brilliant service record without any stigma or punishment for the last 19 years. In the year 2001 while the petitioner was posted at Railway Police Station, Jamshedpur, he was found guilty of extortion and snatching Rs.500/-from the passenger of Gitanjali Express, on duty at Railway Platform on 26.5.2001. Accordingly an F.I.R. was lodged as G.R.P. Case No.31/2000 on 26.5.2001 itself under Section 386/34 of the Indian Penal Code and cognizance was taken, charges were framed and show cause was issued and a departmental proceeding was initiated. 3. The petitioner participated in the departmental proceeding and appeared before the Enquiry Officer and filed a show cause and the enquiry was finally concluded holding the petitioner guilty of charges levelled against him. Based on the enquiry report and findings, the disciplinary authority, Superintendent of Police, once again gave a show cause as to why the petitioner be dismissed from service for the aforesaid charges. The petitioner filed his show cause on 2.7.02. Considering the reply to show cause final order of dismissal was passed. The petitioner filed an appeal on 9.9.02 before the D.I.G., Railway and vide order dated 4.7.03 the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner, being constrained, has preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 25.7.02 and 4.7.03. In the instant writ petition the petitioner prays for the following reliefs:- .(i) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 20.7.2002 passed by S.P. Railway, Jamshedppur, Respondent No.4 herein by which the petitioner was dismissed from his services. .(ii) For direction to the respondents authorities to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits in accordance with law. .(ii) For direction to the respondents authorities to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits in accordance with law. In the instant writ petition the petitioner prays for the following reliefs:- .(i) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 13.8.2002 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Railway, Respondent No.3 herein, by which the petitioner was dismissed from service and for quashing the order dated 28.6.2003 passed by the Appellate Authority, respondent No.3 herein. .(ii) For a direction to the respondents authority to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits in accordance with law. 4. Since the issue involved in all the three writ petitions are similar and identical, hence they are being disposed of by this common order. 5. The main argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is as to whether the impugned orders are sustainable in the eyes of law since no chance of hearing was given to the petitioner and it was a colourable exercise of power. It has further been argued that no reasonable opportunity of hearing contemplated under Article 311 (2) was given and the entire action is violative of the principles of natural justice. It has further been contended that it is a case of no evidence. Lastly it has been contended that for the same set of charges the criminal proceeding as well as a departmental proceeding cannot continue. 6. The counsel for the respondents submits that upon an enquiry and the supervision note a case under Section 386/34 I.P.C. was lodged which was fully substantiated and the charges of extortion from rail passenger was proved against the petitioner. The respondents further submit that a proper and full opportunity was given and the departmental enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the rules giving sufficient time and opportunity to the petitioner to defend. Even the second show cause was issued to the petitioner including the enquiry report of the conducting Officer for filing his explanation as to why he should not be dismissed from service and after considering the entire factual and legal aspect of the enquiry, disciplinary proceeding and the report, the competent authority dismissed the petitioner from his service in a just, fair and reasonable manner. It has also been submitted that even in the criminal case chargesheet has been submitted after thorough investigation the matter is pending before the leanred Court. The appellate authority also considered the appeal in accordance with law and dismissed the same upholding the order of dismissal. The respondents have further submitted that they have duly followed the provisions of Law and considered the evidence and also the provisions of Police Manual after affording full opportunity and there has been a concurrent findings of fact. It has also been submitted that in the criminal case the chargesheet has been filed for extortion under Section 386 read with 34 I.P.C. whereas in the departmental proceeding the charge memo framed against the petitioner are for indiscipline, dereliction of duty, doubtful behaviors and incapable police personnel. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has contended that once the disciplinary proceeding has been initiated and concluded after due participation and an order of punishment has been passed, based on the evidence, the same cannot be reopened or re-appreciated by this Hon’ble Court and in this regard he has referred to and relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Meghalaya V. Mecken Singh N. Marak, as reported in 2008 AIR SCW page-4726. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has gone to the extent of holding that even in the case where an acquittal in criminal proceeding has been ordered, still then the disciplinary proceeding can continue. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further in 2004 (6) SCC page 482 Allahabad District Cooperative Bank Ltd., Allahabad Versus Vidhya Varidh Mishra held that once the participation of the delinquent officer in embezzlement has been proved in a disciplinary enquiry the proper punishment was termination of service and at paragraph 12 it has been further held as under:- “12 ……………….. We are unable to accede to this submission. The termination was pursuant to a disciplinary inquiry. It is settled law that in a disciplinary inquiry a conclusion different from that arrived at by a criminal court, may be arrived at. The strict burden of proof required to establish guilt in a criminal court is not required in disciplinary proceeding. We are unable to accede to this submission. The termination was pursuant to a disciplinary inquiry. It is settled law that in a disciplinary inquiry a conclusion different from that arrived at by a criminal court, may be arrived at. The strict burden of proof required to establish guilt in a criminal court is not required in disciplinary proceeding. The respondent had not claimed that the disciplinary proceedings were not conducted fairly as the termination was based on findings of the Disciplinary Committee, the fact that the appellate court exonerated the respondent was of no consequence.” 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon 2006(5) SCC page 446 for the said proposition. The facts and circumstances of the case as dealt with in the aforesaid judgments does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. This was a case of an acquittal in criminal trial in which it was found that there was no evidence against the employee to hold him guilty. In both the criminal proceedings as well as departmental proceedngs where the charges were same, evidences were same and the witnesses were same the disciplinary proceeding after acquittal in criminal proceedings cannot continue. In the instant case the criminal proceedings have been initiated for extortion whereas the disciplinary proceedings has been initiated for gross dereliction of duty, indiscipline, doubtful integrity etc. Thus the reliance on these judgments is misplaced and unsustainable. 10. The counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon 1999 (3) scc PAGE 679, Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Another to support his contention. It is reiterated that even in Capt. M.Paul Anthony case it was specifically held that the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal proceedings can continue simultaneously since the scope of these proceedings are different and they can be continued independently. Capt.M.Paul Anthony was a case of acquittal in criminal case with categorical findings that the prosecution failed to establish its case and also because the charges, evidences and facts in the departmental as well in the criminal proceedings were identical and it was in these background held that in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances, the agony suffered since 1985 and the acquittal in criminal case in 1987 for same set of charges no fresh disciplinary enquiry could be initiated. Even, the reference and reliance to a judgment dated 11.4.2008 in W.P.(S) No.715 of 2005 Ram Khelawan Paswan Versus State of Jharkhand and Others is misplaced and unsustainable in the eyes of law and even otherwise the facts and circumstances in that case was different. 11. In a recent judgment, rendered in the case of NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association V. NOIDA & ors., as reported in (2007)10 SCC 385 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering an identical issue held at paragraph nos. 15 and 16 as under: “15. The position in law relating to acquittal in a criminal case, its effect on departmental proceedings and reinstatement in service has been dealt with by this Court in Union of India v. Bihari Lal Sidhana. It was held in para 5 as follows: (SCC pp.387-88) ‘5. It is true that the respondent was acquitted by the criminal court but acquittal does not automatically give him the right to be reinstated into the service. It would still be open to the competent authority to take decision whether the delinquent government servant can be taken into service or disciplinary action should be taken under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules or under the Temporary Service Rules. Admittedly, the respondent had been working as a temporary government servant before he was kept under suspension. The termination order indicated the factum that he, by then, was under suspension. It is only a way of describing him as being under suspension when the order came to be passed but that does not constitute any stigma. Mere acquittal of government employee does not automatically entitle the government servant to reinstatement. As stated earlier, it would be open to the appropriate competent authority to take a decision whether the enquiry into the conduct is required to be done before directing reinstatement or appropriate action should be taken as per law, if otherwise, available. Since the respondent is only a temporary government servant, the power being available under Rule 5(1) of the Rules, it is always open to the competent authority to invoke the said power and terminate the services of the employee instead of conducting the enquiry or to continue in service a government servant accused of defalcation of public money. Reinstatement would be a charter for him to indulge with impunity in misappropriation of public money.’ 16. Reinstatement would be a charter for him to indulge with impunity in misappropriation of public money.’ 16. The standard of proof required in departmental proceedings is not the same as required to prove a criminal charge and even if there is an acquittal in the criminal proceedings the same does not bar departmental proceedings. That being so, the order of the State Government deciding not to continue the departmental proceedings is clearly untenable and is quashed. The departmental proceedings shall continue.” 12. In the aforesaid judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically held that the departmental proceedings shall continue even if there is an acquittal in the criminal proceedings. The ratio of the aforesaid judgment squarely applies and covers the present case. It is further relevant to point out that in the instant case the criminal proceedings were quashed and order of acquittal was passed giving the benefit of doubt to the petitioner. 13. I have considered the pleadings, arguments and the rival arguments raised by the parties and I find that the issues raised in these writ petitions is no more res-integra and has been time and again decided. The first issue raised is as to whether during the pendency of criminal proceeding a disciplinary proceeding can be initiated. It is well settled law that during the pendency of criminal proceedings a disciplinary proceedings can certainly be initiated. The second issue with regard to not even affording any opportunity to the petitioner and the action of the respondent being violative of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution is on the face of it erroneous and unsustainable. The admitted fact remains that a show cause was issued followed by charge memo and thereafter a full-fledged disciplinary proceeding and the Enquiry Officer gave full opportunity and the petitioner who duly participated and after considering the show cause, the evidences followed by the examination of witnesses, a recommendation was made by the Enquiry Officer in its report for dismissal from service. 14. The disciplinary authority, on receiving the enquiry report again gave a show cause seeking his explanation as to why dismissal order be not issued, the competent disciplinary authority upon receiving his explanation considered it afresh and passed an order of dismissal from service. 14. The disciplinary authority, on receiving the enquiry report again gave a show cause seeking his explanation as to why dismissal order be not issued, the competent disciplinary authority upon receiving his explanation considered it afresh and passed an order of dismissal from service. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred an appeal and the appellate authority by a detailed speaking order after considering each and every fact, evidences and statement of witnesses and the enquiry report and the order of the disciplinary authority dismissed the appeal as well. Thus, it will be evident that full opportunity was given and the cardinal principles of natural justice was duly followed in the disciplinary proceedings and there is nothing illegal or erroneous on the part of the respondents to suggest that the disciplinary proceedings were illegal or violative of the principles of natural justice. It is further relevant to point out that the petitioner participated in the entire disciplinary proceedings and only after the order of dismissal being passed, raised thus alibi of not being afforded full opportunity. This contention and argument cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and even otherwise estoppel by conduct will apply against the petitioner. 15. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of a concurrent findings of facts this Court cannot reappreciate the finding of facts and evidence under Article 226 of the Constitution. 16. Under these facts and circumstances of the case all the three writ petitions, being devoid of any merit, are accordingly dismissed.