ORDER Subhash B. Adi, J. The award dated 21.2.2006 in Ref. No. 75/2004 is called in question by the workman. 2. The workman sought for reference against the dismissal order passed against him on 31.3.2001. The respondent had dispensed the enquiry by invoking the provisions of Clause - 14 sub-clause (iii) of the KEB Employees (CDC & A) Regulations, 1987 and had passed an order of dismissal. Against the said order of dismissal, the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.3844/1999. The said Writ Petition was allowed and the order of punishment was quashed. However, liberty was given to the respondent to pass appropriate resolution as contemplated under the Regulation 14(iii) of the Regulation. Thereafter, the Board passed a resolution inter alia, observing that, it is not expedient to hold a detailed enquiry by following the procedure laid down under the Regulations 11, 12 & 13 of the said Regulation and directed the Disciplinary Authority to pass such orders as deemed fit as contemplated under Regulation 14 of the said Regulation. The Disciplinary Authority invoking the said provision relying on the admission alleged to have been made by the petitioner and others before the Investigating Officer and also recovery of amount and duplicate key by the police during investigation, passed an order of dismissal against the petitioner and others. Against the said order, the petitioner sought for reference of a dispute. 3. The Labour Court observing that, Board has passed a resolution authorizing the Disciplinary Authority to dispense the detailed enquiry and by relying on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 1996 SC 1065 in the matter of HARI PADA KHAN VS. UNION OF INDIA observed that; the charge is very serious and the petitioner and others have admitted the charge. In the light of the admission, the Disciplinary Authority is justified in passing the order of dismissal. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, no doubt Clause 14(iii) authorizes the Board to pass a resolution permitting the Disciplinary Authority to dispense the detailed enquiry, however, the Disciplinary Authority in order to pass an order of dismissal, has relied on the statement alleged to have been made by the petitioner and others before the Investigating Officer and based on the said statement, he found that, the petitioner is guilty of the alleged charge of theft. He submitted that, the Criminal Court in its acquittal judgment has held that, the charge of theft alleged against the petitioner under Section 381 of the IPC is not proved. He relied on the acquittal judgment and pointed out that, two panchas PW3 and PW4 who were examined before the Criminal Court, they have not supported the case of the prosecution regarding recovery of the amount, He also pointed out that, the Investigating Officer who filed the charge sheet alleging that, the recovery of amount and duplicate key from the petitioner and others is also not examined. The Criminal Court has found that, the evidence produced by the prosecution lacks to prove the alleged charge. Relying on the said judgment, he further submitted that, if the petitioner has been honourably acquitted by the Criminal Court, there is no reason for the Disciplinary Authority to rely on the alleged statement alleged to have been made before the Investigating Officer, which is inadmissible not only before the Criminal Court but also before the Disciplinary Authority. Despite of acquittal by the Criminal Court, despite there being no evidence, the Disciplinary Authority has passed the order of dismissal. If there is no evidence before the Disciplinary Authority, the finding of the Disciplinary Authority is perverse. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that, serious allegation of theft was alleged against the petitioner and others, in pursuance of the complaint filed before the police, the Investigating Officer investigated the matter. During the course of investigation, he recovered portion of the amount stolen and also the duplicate key and this fact is admitted by the petitioner and others before the Investigating Officer. Once, the offence is admitted, there is no need to hold an enquiry. He also relied on Clause 14(iii) of the KEB Regulation and submitted that, the power is conferred on the Board to dispense with the enquiry and permit the Disciplinary Authority to pass an order of punishment and the Board in consequence of the said provision, has passed a resolution and based on the said resolution, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order of dismissal. He submitted that, in case of serious charge, when there is threat to the security, the Apex Court has observed that, the Disciplinary Authority can terminate the service of the employee. 6. He submitted that, in case of serious charge, when there is threat to the security, the Apex Court has observed that, the Disciplinary Authority can terminate the service of the employee. 6. The only question that arises for consideration is: “As to whether the respondent was justified in dispensing with the detailed enquiry and whether the disciplinary Authority was justified in passing the order of dismissal relying on the alleged statement alleged to have been made by the petitioner before the Investigating Officer in a Criminal Case ?” 7. The allegation against the petitioner was that, he is involved in theft of Rs. 1,39,630/- and in this regard, a criminal complaint was lodged. The Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet alleging that, the petitioner and others have admitted the criminal charge and has recovered a portion of the amount along with duplicate key, Based on the serious allegation against the petitioner, the Board passed resolution, dispensing with the detailed enquiry. The Disciplinary Authority relied on the statement alleged to have been made by the petitioner and others before the Investigating Officer and treating the same as admission, has passed an order of dismissal. 8. It is not in dispute that, the charge sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer in CC No. 31/1999. The learned Magistrate in his judgment has considered the evidence produced by the prosecution. Two witnesses namely PW3 and PW4 who alleged to have been the panch witnesses to the mahazar were examined by the prosecution. In their statement, they have not supported the case of the prosecution that the amount was recovered from the petitioner and others. The Criminal Court also comes to the conclusion that, there is no evidence to prove the charge. Further, the Investigating Officer who inspected the matter and filed the charge sheet was also not examined by the prosecution. The Criminal Court held that, the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of Section 381 against the petitioner and others and acquitted the petitioner and others under Section 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure. 9. Further, the Investigating Officer who inspected the matter and filed the charge sheet was also not examined by the prosecution. The Criminal Court held that, the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of Section 381 against the petitioner and others and acquitted the petitioner and others under Section 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure. 9. If the Criminal Court based on the same evidence holds that, the charge of theft in not proved against the petitioner and also holds that the recovery is also not proved by the prosecution, the reliance placed by the Disciplinary Authority on the alleged statement alleged to have been made before the Investigating Officer, is not justified and particularly when an enquiry is dispensed with, the petitioner had no opportunity before the Disciplinary Authority and the Disciplinary Authority based on the dispensation of the detailed enquiry has passed the order of dismissal only on the ground that the petitioner has admitted the allegation of theft before the Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer has recovered the portion of amount as well as the duplicate key. This fact is not proved before the Criminal Court nor any other evidence is produced. If the criminal charge alleged against the petitioner based on the alleged statement made before the Investigating Officer is not treated as an admission under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The Disciplinary Authority to rely on the same, passed the order of dismissal, in my opinion, is absolutely improper. No doubt, the acquittal of the petitioner by itself is not a ground to hold that the petitioner is not guilty of misconduct. Irrespective of acquittal, the Disciplinary Authority can proceed with the enquiry. In this case, there is no enquiry nor there is any material other than the statement alleged to have been made before the Investigating Officer. When the said statement is not appreciated in a criminal case, there was no reason for the Disciplinary Authority to rely on the same and to pass an order of dismissal and this is only ground on which the order of punishment is passed. The Labour Court having noticed the facts of the case by wrongly interpreting the judgment of the Apex Court, has passed the award. Even the Apex Court in the matter of Hari Pada Khan Vs. The Labour Court having noticed the facts of the case by wrongly interpreting the judgment of the Apex Court, has passed the award. Even the Apex Court in the matter of Hari Pada Khan Vs. Union of India has observed that; “Therefore, it was most expedient in the public interest not to hold any further enquiry and terminate his services forthwith. However, it would be subject to the result of the trial” 10. This observation clearly shows that, in expedient circumstances, if the Authority finds that the detailed enquiry is not warranted in the public interest and the order of termination could be passed, such orders could be passed looking into the gravity of the charge. But, they are all subject to the result of the criminal case. In this case, there is acquittal in favour of the petitioner. There is no evidence before the Disciplinary Authority. In such circumstances, the order of dismissal is admittedly unwarranted. The Labour Court not appreciating the same and also not appreciating the fact that, the statement made before the Investigating Officer is no evidence, has passed the award. In the absence of evidence before the Disciplinary Authority, the order of dismissal and the award of the Labour Court is not sustainable. 11. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. The award of the Labour Court in Ref. No. 75/2004 is quashed. The order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority is also set aside.