Judgment :- Aruna Jagadeesan, J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.27591 of 2003 dated 20.12.2007, declining to interfere with the finding arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority, the third respondent herein, as confirmed by the Appellate Authority, the fourth respondent herein, imposing punishment of dismissal against the Appellant, holding that there was no illegality or irregularity or impropriety in the procedure and the order passed by the authorities. 2. The facts in a nutshell are as follows:- (a) The Appellant was working as a Manager of Syndicate Bank at Velipalayam Nagapattinam Branch since 29. 2000 and was working in SB Department from 7. 2001. On 17. 2001, he had taken out a cheque book bearing Nos.578601 to 578700 from the stock, duly acknowledging in stock register and issued the same to SB A/c No.EC 1 of Shrine Basilica, Velankanni. He had handed over the said cheque book to Mr. Kumaran, temporary PTS/Attender who had delivered the same to the church authorities. Acknowledgment from the account holder for having received the cheque book was not obtained. Out of the said cheques, the following two cheques were presented for payment and cleared by Indian Bank, Nagore Branch. (a) Cheque No.578695 for Rs.1.23 lakhs favouring A. Vinayaga Moorthy received at the Branch on 20.8.2001; (b) Cheque NO.578671 for Rs.2.46 lakhs favouring A. Vinayaga Moorthy received at the Branch on 30.8.2001. The above cheques were debited to SB A/c No.EC 1 of Shrine Basilica by Mr. G. Sundar, Clerk who brought the cheques from clearing house and the Appellant had authorized payment of the said two cheques on 20.8.2001 and 30.8.2001 respectively. The SB sub-day/OG 167 was prepared by G. Sundar on the above dates. The Appellant had checked sub-day/OG 167 dated 20.8.2001 but for 30.8.2001, it was not verified and authenticated by him. The above two cheques were missing from the Branch. Thereafter, the account holder had preferred a complaint informing that they had not issued the above two cheques and requested amount to be re-credited to their account. Thus by the act of the Appellant, the Bank had suffered financial loss of Rs.3.69 lakhs. The above two cheques were missing from the Branch. Thereafter, the account holder had preferred a complaint informing that they had not issued the above two cheques and requested amount to be re-credited to their account. Thus by the act of the Appellant, the Bank had suffered financial loss of Rs.3.69 lakhs. (b) It is revealed that one A. Vinayaga Moorthy, a close associate of Appellant had encashed (sic) the above two cheques through newly opened SB A/c No.6697 with Indian Bank, Nagore Branch and that the said A. Vinayaga Moorthy had reportedly handed over the amount to the Appellant after deducting commission of 3% as per the understanding and the account was opened in the name of A. Vinayaga Moorthy on the assurance that he would get him a loan and the same was canvassed by G. Sundar, Clerk. (c) The following irregularities were observed on the part of the Appellant in respect of the above transaction: "(a) The Appellant and G. Sundar, Clerk, in collusion with their close associate A. Vinayaga Moorthy, permitted/caused encashment of two cheques for amounts aggregating to Rs.3,69 lakhs containing forged signature of the account holder and caused huge financial loss to the bank. In the said process, the Appellant had tarnished the fair image of the bank. (b) While issuing the cheque book, the Appellant failed to adhere to the guidelines contained vide Clause No.6. 2 – (ii) b, d, e, f, h, and 2 of Manual of Instructions Volume I an thereby facilitated pilferage of two cheque leaves from the said cheque book which were used for coming fraud. (c) The Appellant failed to exercise necessary care and caution/safe to keep the vouchers and thereby caused misplacement/destruction of the above said cheques." (d) Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Appellant for the above said charges including two other minor charges. In the departmental proceedings, the charges were held to be proved and the penalty of dismissal was passed on him. The said finding was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. (e) Aggrieved against the said finding, the Appellant preferred W.P.No.27591 of 2003 for issuance of a writ of certiorarified manadamus to call for the records pertaining to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings in Ref. No.25/PD:IRD/DA-3 dated 22. The said finding was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. (e) Aggrieved against the said finding, the Appellant preferred W.P.No.27591 of 2003 for issuance of a writ of certiorarified manadamus to call for the records pertaining to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings in Ref. No.25/PD:IRD/DA-3 dated 22. 2002 of the third respondent and all the connected enquiry proceedings of the second respondent, the proceedings of the third respondent touching the dismissal of the petitioner from service in Proceedings No.61/PD:IRD/DA-6, dated 25. 2003 and the proceedings of the 4th respondent in No.60/PD:IRD:DA:7 dated 27. 2003 confirming the order of dismissal passed by the third respondent and communicated to the appellant vide Letter Ref.No.1245/0089/PD/IRD(O)/OR-7033 dated 30.7.2003 of the Chief Manager, IR Division, Syndicate Bank, Manipal and to quash the same and direct them to reinstate the appellant V. Marimuthu in service with all back wages/service benefits due to him from 11. 2001, the date of suspension. (f) The learned single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition holding inter alia that non examination of witnesses has not prejudiced the petitioner in any manner; that petitioner cannot be absolved of the liability merely because some other employees of the Bank were involved in the said episode; that the Order passed by the disciplinary authority and by the appellate authority in appeal was well considered. Against the said order, the present writ appeal has been preferred. 3. The submission put-forth by the learned senior counsel Thiru A.E. Chelliah, appearing for the Appellant is two fold:- (i) Undisputedly, by way of judicial review, this Court cannot go into the merits and appreciate the evidence adduced before two authorities, nevertheless, this Court can interfere if the decision making process suffers from illegality or procedural impropriety. In the present case, non-examination of vital and material witnesses who are responsible for the impugned acts in the disciplinary proceedings and also nonproduction of relevant documents, amounted to procedural violation and in such circumstances, the findings as recorded by the authorities would only he held as, not supported by any evidence. 4. In the present case, non-examination of vital and material witnesses who are responsible for the impugned acts in the disciplinary proceedings and also nonproduction of relevant documents, amounted to procedural violation and in such circumstances, the findings as recorded by the authorities would only he held as, not supported by any evidence. 4. The second submission is that an honourable acquittal in a criminal proceedings would be relevant when the set of facts and charges are the same, both in the criminal case and the departmental proceedings and the law laid down by the Apex Court in G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat and Others AIR 2006 SC 2129 : (2006) 5 SCC 446 : (2006) 3 MLJ 143 is a very big march of law and as such, the Appellant having been acquitted in the appeal filed against conviction, has to be taken as a relevant factor to absolve the Appellant from the liability under the disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned order of dismissal from service deserves to be set aside. 5. In support of his first submission, the learned senior counsel drew the attention of this Court to a decision in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation, (1947) AELR 680, wherein it is held that the Court is entitled to investigate the action of the local authority with a view to see whether it has taken into account matters which it has taken into account or, conversely, has refused to take into account matters which it ought to take into account. By referring to the said decision, the learned senior counsel contended that in the instant case, examination of Krishnamurthi, formerly Manager of Velipalayam Nagapattinam Branch, the sixth respondent herein, one Subramanian, Meenakshi, who were all staff of the Bank, whose presence could have been easily secured, and whose evidence is material and relevant in the disciplinary proceedings, have not been examined, despite the request made by the Appellant. According to him, it is a clear violation of principles of natural justice in decision making process. 6. The learned senior counsel vehemently argued had the 6th respondent Krishnamurthi been examined, the Appellant would have had an opportunity to falsify the case put against him. According to him, it is a clear violation of principles of natural justice in decision making process. 6. The learned senior counsel vehemently argued had the 6th respondent Krishnamurthi been examined, the Appellant would have had an opportunity to falsify the case put against him. He took us to the relevant portions in the evidence of Thiru C. Sambasiva Reddy, Senior Manager, Social Office, MW-1, Thiru R. Ramachandran, Branch Manager, Velipalayam, Nagapattinam Branch, MW-3 and A. Vinayaga Moorthy MW-4 recorded in the enquiry proceedings. Imputing liability on Krishnamurthi, who according to him is responsible for the impugned irregularities, would submit that the cheque book containing 100 leaves starting from 578601 to 578700 were taken from the safe and issued to EC I by the Appellant and the same was delivered to R. Krishnamurthi, the officer in-charge of EC counter service, Velankanni Church, which is evident from MEX5, a document on the backside of which, the said Officer has written the series of the said cheque book and initialed. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that it was the duty of the said officer to deliver the cheque book in question to the account holder and as such he was a vital witness. He drew the attention of this Court to the cross examination of MW-1 to MW-3 to state that Krishnamurthi accompanied Kumaran to Velankanni Church, where the cheque book was delivered to the account holder. Therefore, he would contend that the said facts elicited above would clearly prove that the Appellant issued the cheque book following the procedures laid down by the Bank and it was only the said Krishnamurthi who is responsible for the above lapses. He also made a reference to certain other portions in the evidence of witnesses to show that vital documents like day book, two disputed cheque leaves and slip bundles were not produced before the enquiry authority which has caused prejudice to the Appellant. 7. It is settled law that in a disciplinary enquiry, charge can be said to have been proved on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, proof beyond reasonable doubt which is required in criminal trial is not necessary. 7. It is settled law that in a disciplinary enquiry, charge can be said to have been proved on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, proof beyond reasonable doubt which is required in criminal trial is not necessary. It has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Ratan Singh 1982-I-LLJ-46 as under:- "It is well settled in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has a reasonable nexus and credibility. It is true that departmental authorities and administrative Tribunal must be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly follow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the Indian Evidence Act". 8. From the above it is clear that the simple point is, was there some evidence or was there no evidence – not in the sense of the technical rules governing regular Court proceedings but in a fair commonsense way as men of understanding and worldly wisdom will accept. 9. It is not disputed that the Appellant was given reasonable opportunity to cross examine the witnesses produced by the Presenting Officer and also had opportunity of being heard in his defence. Further, the documents referred to by the enquiry officer had been furnished to the Appellant and there is no dispute over it. An enquiry officer holding departmental enquiry though governed by rules is entitled to examine such witnesses as he chooses in the departmental enquiry. He cannot be compelled to examine any particular witness and the mere fact that they did not examine any witness as suggested by the Appellant cannot vitiate the enquiry. It is the discretion of the Presenting Officer and if he feels that examination of a particular witness would be sufficient to prove the charges, in that event, it is not necessary to produce other witnesses. The only point that has to be looked into is whether the materials and evidence produced had nexus with the conclusion arrived at by the Enquiry Officer and withholding of any evidence had an effect of adverse inference. 10. The only point that has to be looked into is whether the materials and evidence produced had nexus with the conclusion arrived at by the Enquiry Officer and withholding of any evidence had an effect of adverse inference. 10. In State Bank of India v. Tarun Kumar Banerjee, AIR 2000 SC 3028 : (2000) 8 SCC 12 : 2000-II-LLJ-1373, where the charge of misappropriation of customers money was found to have been proved on the basis of two eye witnesses, the Supreme Court disposed of certain points raised on behalf of the employee as under at p. 1376 of LLJ: "A customer of the Bank need not be involved in a domestic enquiry conducted as such a course would not be conducive to proper banker-customer relationship and, therefore, would not be in the interest of the Bank. Further, when money was secured a prudent banker would deposit the same in the account of the customer complaining of loss of money and, therefore, non-production of money also would not be of much materiality. When in the course of the domestic enquiry no reliance was placed on the so-called confessional statement made by the first respondent, then non-production of the same is also of no significance. Thus, in our opinion, these circumstances are irrelevant. The Apex Court also supported and explained a controversial comment of the employer in the order of dismissal to the following effect: "What is stated therein is that when sufficient evidence was produced to conclude one way or the other, the evidence not produced will not be of any significance unless there was such evidence which was withheld would have tilted the evidence adduced in the course of domestic enquiry. No such evidence is forthcoming in this case". 11. From the above observation of the Honble Supreme Court, it is clear that nonexamination of certain witnesses and non-production of documents referred to by the Appellant would not be of much materiality, as no relevance was placed on the said evidence by the enquiry authorities. If really the Appellant has thought that some of the witnesses, more particularly Thiru R. Krishnamurthi, not examined by the Enquiry Officer was relevant, he could have always summoned those witnesses, There was no fetter or bar in such course. 12. If really the Appellant has thought that some of the witnesses, more particularly Thiru R. Krishnamurthi, not examined by the Enquiry Officer was relevant, he could have always summoned those witnesses, There was no fetter or bar in such course. 12. In State Bank of Patiala and Others v. S.K. Sharma, AIR 1996 SC 1669 : (1996) 3 SCC 364 : 1996-II-LLJ-296, Regulations 68 of the Service Regulations provided that the delinquent officer shall, for the purpose of preparing his defence, be supplied with copies of statement of witnesses, if any, recorded earlier not later than three days before the commencement of the witnesses by enquiry officer. However, the concerned officer was not supplied with the copies of statement of two witnesses recorded during the preliminary enquiry. The Court noted that he was permitted to peruse them and take notes therefrom more than three days prior to their examination. Of the two witnesses, only one was examined and the other was not examined. The charge-sheeted officer did not raise any objection during the enquiry that the non-furnishing of the copies of the statement was disabling him or had disabled him, as the case may be, from effectively cross-examining the witnesses or to defend himself. The trial Court had not found that any prejudice had resulted from the said violation. The Appellate Court had said that it had prejudiced his case, but except merely mentioning the same, it had not specified in what manner and in what sense was the officer prejudiced in his defence. The High Court did not refer to the aspect of prejudice at all. For these reasons, the Supreme Court held that no prejudice had resulted to the Officer and that it could not be said on account of the said violation, that the officer did not have a fair hearing or that the enquiry was not fair. 13. In State of Maharashtra v. Madukar Narayan Mardikar, AIR 1991 SC 207 : (1991) 1 SCC 57 : 1991-I-LLJ-269, the Supreme Court held that if the original documents are missing and if the transcripts prepared by the witnesses earlier were supplied, the department could not be accused of deliberately suppressing evidence. In such a situation, the evidence had to be evaluated bearing in mind the fact that the original note books and the log book of the jeep were missing. In such a situation, the evidence had to be evaluated bearing in mind the fact that the original note books and the log book of the jeep were missing. The non supply of the original note books and the log book could not efface the other evidence which was sufficient to record a finding of guilty against the delinquent. 14. In this regard, it is relevant to state that to the letter addressed by the appellant to the enquiry authority requesting him to produce certain witnesses and documents referred by him at the time of departmental enquiry, it has been replied by the Inquiring authority by letter dated 1. 2003 that the Presenting Officer has informed that he has no other witnesses to be examined except A. Vinayaga Moorthy and further informing the appellant that he was at liberty to examine any witness who are relevant to the case, to disprove the charges levelled against him. 15. Moreover, there are direct evidences to prove the charges levelled against the appellant and merely because Krishnamurthi was not examined, testimonies before the enquiry officer cannot be regarded as hearsay evidence. Testimony of Vinayaga Moorthy is direct and the statement given by him is produced as MEX-51. It can be inferred that there was sufficient evidence on which the finding was based. The evidence of Vinayaga Moorthy has been taken as primary and material evidence to prove the charge that the appellant along with his close associate Vinayaga Moorthy caused encashment of two fraudulent cheques for the amount aggregating to Rs.3,69 lakhs drawn on SB Account of Shrine Basilica Velankanni, containing forged signature of the account holder which were presented by Vinayaga Moorthy through his Banker viz., Indian Bank, Nagore Branch. It cannot be said that his evidence lacks credibility. 16. The Disciplinary Authority had considered the statements of the witnesses and the documents, and elaborately dealt with each and every aspect of the matter and on the basis of said evidence, held the allegation proved. Even if the finding of the disciplinary authority is based upon the evidence of one witness viz., Vinayaga Moorthy, it cannot be said that the findings are vitiated. Even if the finding of the disciplinary authority is based upon the evidence of one witness viz., Vinayaga Moorthy, it cannot be said that the findings are vitiated. The proof of a case does not depend upon the number of witnesses and if there are few contradictions, the same cannot have any effect on the findings because technical rules regarding sufficiency of evidence are not applicable to the disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, the argument that the findings are perverse cannot be accepted. 17. As regards the documents mentioned by him, it is replied that those documents are not relied upon by the authority and further, the presenting officer had claimed privilege over the said reports and hence the same were not made available. The obligation to supply copies of documents by the authorities is confined only to material and relevant documents which may have been relied in support of the charges. Hence the Enquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority are not bound to supply each and every document that may be asked for by the delinquent employee. It is up to the delinquent to satisfy in the enquiry proceedings how each and every document is relevant to the charges or to the enquiry held against him, and where and how their non-supply has prejudiced his case. In this case, when a particular document was asked for by the appellant, the enquiry officer has replied that the said particular document is of confidential nature and copy thereof cannot be handed over to him. To this, the appellant has not made any objection and he has proceeded with the cross examination of witnesses. In such circumstances, when the appellant has not expressed such grievance during enquiry, in the absence of any material to show that the non-supply of document has prejudiced his case, it is not for him to raise this issue at this distant point of time. Therefore, nonsupply of document and non examination of witnesses had in no way vitiated the enquiry proceedings. 18. The second contention of the appellant is that the order of dismissal passed by the authorities is liable to be set aside in view of the honourable acquittal recorded by the appellate Court on criminal side on the same set of charges and same set of facts in both the proceedings. The learned senior counsel Mr. 18. The second contention of the appellant is that the order of dismissal passed by the authorities is liable to be set aside in view of the honourable acquittal recorded by the appellate Court on criminal side on the same set of charges and same set of facts in both the proceedings. The learned senior counsel Mr. A.E. Chelliah relied on the decisions G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat and Others (supra) and T.N.C.S. Corpn. Ltd. and Others v. K. Meerabai (2006) 2 SCC 255 in support of his contention. 19. Though we are in respectful agreement with the observations made by the Honble Supreme Court in those decisions, on facts, this case is differentiable. At the outset, in the criminal proceedings in G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat and Others (supra) case, the appellant was acquitted on 30.1.2002. The order of dismissal was passed on 210. 1982 in the disciplinary proceedings. The facts would disclose that departmental proceedings were initiated on the same set of facts viz., raid conducted at the delinquents residence, recovery of articles etc. The enquiry Officer and other departmental witnesses were the only witnesses examined by the enquiry officer, who by relying upon their statement, came to the conclusion that the charges were established against the delinquent. The same witnesses were examined in the criminal case and the criminal Court on the examination of those documents came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the guilt and acquitted the appellant and under those circumstances, the Apex Court held that it would be unjust and unfair and rather apprehensive to allow the findings recorded by the departmental proceedings to stand. It is pertinent to note that in the said case, the accused was proceeded under Section 5(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act and it is common knowledge that the burden is on the accused to account for sources for the acquisition of disproportionate assets. The Criminal Court held that from the evidence, it was clear that the accused has not suppressed any acquisition of immovable property from his department and therefore, under the said circumstances, it was difficult to believe that the accused has not satisfactorily accounted for the said property. The Criminal Court held that from the evidence, it was clear that the accused has not suppressed any acquisition of immovable property from his department and therefore, under the said circumstances, it was difficult to believe that the accused has not satisfactorily accounted for the said property. On the said facts, the Apex Court held that the accused having been acquitted honourably by the competent criminal Court on the same set of facts and evidence, order of dismissal passed by the department is liable to be set aside. 20. In the present case, the prosecution launched against the appellant was in respect of offences punishable under Section 379, 465, 467, 468, 471, 320 and 34 IPC whereas the departmental proceedings as initiated against him were in respect of charges like failing to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of Bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, diligence and devotion and that he exhibited conduct unbecoming of the status of a officer, contravening Regulation 3(1), read with Article 24 of Central Bank Officers Employees (Conduct Regulation Act) 1976. Imputation of misconduct in the departmental proceeding is based on the allegation that the appellant and one Sundar, another staff of the Bank, in collusion with their close associate Vinayaga Moorthy caused encashment of two cheques to an aggregate of Rs.3.69 lakhs containing forged signature of the account holder and caused huge financial loss to the Bank. So, it is evident that the appellant was proceeded against, on different sets of facts and different charges before the criminal Court on one hand and before the departmental enquiry on the other. Therefore, the observation made by the Honble Supreme Court in G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat is not applicable to the facts of this case. 21. Similar contention was put-forth on identical facts in Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corpn. v. Meera Bai (2006) 2 SCC 255 . The Honble Supreme Court rejected the said contention and held thus:- "The prosecution proceedings launched against the respondent herein were in respect of offences punishable under Sections 409 and 477-A IPC, whereas the departmental proceedings as initiated against her were in respect of the charges of misappropriation and other fraudulent practices. v. Meera Bai (2006) 2 SCC 255 . The Honble Supreme Court rejected the said contention and held thus:- "The prosecution proceedings launched against the respondent herein were in respect of offences punishable under Sections 409 and 477-A IPC, whereas the departmental proceedings as initiated against her were in respect of the charges of misappropriation and other fraudulent practices. Thus, the respondent herein was proceeded against for quite different charges and on different sets of facts before the criminal Court on the one hand and before the departmental enquiry officer on the other. The High Court patently erred in holding that the acquittal of the respondent by the criminal Court had clinched the issue in the departmental enquiry". The Supreme Court further held that the employee having held a position of trust, where honesty and integrity were inbuilt requirements of functioning, the matter required to be dealt with firmly with firm hands and not leniently. 22. In C.M.D. United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar, AIR 2003 SC 1571 : (2003) 4 SCC 364 : 2003-II-LLJ-181, Honble Supreme Court held thus at p.187 of LLJ: "13. A Bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with money of the depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of the Bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the Bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank Officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the Bank. It is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit resulted in case, when the officer/employee acted without authority. The very discipline of an organization more particularly a Bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond ones authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct. The charges of fabricating, manipulating records against the employee were not casual in nature and were serious. Ignoring these aspects High Court set aside dismissal order passed by authority as shocking disproportionate without indicating reasons. 23. Acting beyond ones authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct. The charges of fabricating, manipulating records against the employee were not casual in nature and were serious. Ignoring these aspects High Court set aside dismissal order passed by authority as shocking disproportionate without indicating reasons. 23. In this case, the disciplinary authority has given satisfactory reasons for differing with the conclusion arrived at by the Enquiry Officer and that apart the disciplinary authority has also given valid reasons for inflicting punishment of dismissal on the appellant. The appellant, an officer of the Bank, who is required to take all possible steps to protect the interest of the Bank and to discharge his duty with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank Officer has acted with mala fide intention and swindled the money of the public. As was upheld by the Honble Supreme Court in Disciplinary Authority cum Regional Manager v. Nikunj Bihari Patnaik, 1996-II-LLJ-379, it is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit resulted in this case especially when the charges against the appellant were not casual in nature but serious. 24. In view of the reasons stated above, we are not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the learned single Judge. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. W.A.No.366 of 2008 P. Jyothimani, J. 1. After the delivery of the Judgment, the learned senior counsel for the appellant has made an oral request for the purpose of issuance of certificate to approach the Supreme Court against the Judgment. 2. The learned senior counsel for the appellant has submitted, with reference to paragraph (13) of the Judgment, to the effect that there was absolutely no evidence against the appellant for the purpose of proceeding against him. It is relevant to point out, at this stage, that the charge against the appellant was not manipulation of records, but it was only the missing of two cheques, being an officer under supervisory control. 3. It is relevant to point out, at this stage, that the charge against the appellant was not manipulation of records, but it was only the missing of two cheques, being an officer under supervisory control. 3. The next submission of the learned senior counsel for the appellant is that this Court has held that the Judgment of the Supreme Court in G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat and Others, AIR 2006 SC 2129 : (2006) 5 SCC 446 : (2006) 3 MLJ 143 is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the said case, both in the criminal case as well as the disciplinary proceedings, same set of facts and same witnesses were relied upon by the Department. However, on the facts of the present case, we have found that there is no similarity of the facts and circumstances between the criminal case and the departmental proceedings and held that the said Judgment of the Supreme Court in G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat and Others (supra), is not applicable. In view of the same, it is not possible to issue the said certificate. The plea of the learned senior counsel for the appellant is rejected.