JUDGMENT By Court.-In this writ petition the petitioner' has challenged the award dated 29.9.1999 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 Dhanbad. The following dispute was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication:- "Whether the demand of Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Typist-cum-Clerk, Pootkee Balihari Area of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, for reinstatement in service with full back wages is justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled to?" 2. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner Manoj Kumar Sinha, hereinafter called the concerned workman, was a typist-cum-clerk posted in the Civil Construction Department in Putki Balihari Area of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited. In between the period from December 1981 to December 1982, 11 workmen were inducted into employment in the aforesaid area on the basis of forged and fabricated letters of appointment issued under the forged signature of the then Deputy Personnel Manager (Manpower) Incharge of recruitment of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited. The matter of fake appointment, was enquired into and on initial enquiry the complicity of the petitioner• came to light. He was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid commission of misconduct. He filed his show cause but not being satisfied with his reply, the Personnel Manager was appointed to enquire into the charges against the petitioner and 5 others, who allegedly connived in the fraud played upon the Management by inducting 11 employees on the basis of the forged and fabricated appointment letters. The main allegation against the concerned workman, i.e. this petitioner is that while he was posted in the Civil Construction Department, though he had nothing to do with the Personnel Department but he typed forged appointment letters on the typewriter machine allotted to him in favour of those candidates seeking employment and accompanied them to the area office alongwith forged appointment letters. Thereafter, deposited the appointment letters in the area office and requested to issue the posting orders. As per the allegations, the joining letters submitted by the fake appointees were prepared by this petitioner under his own handwriting thus he played active role in getting 11 fake appointees posted on the strength of forged and fabricated appointment letters under the forged signature of R.P. Singh, Deputy Personnel Manager (Manpower), B.C.C.L. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report finding him guilty of misconduct and, . There after, on the basis of such report the petitioner was dismissed from service by issue of letter under the signature of G.M.-cum-Chief Mining Engineer. 3. The question of fairness of domestic enquiry was taken up and it was held to be fair and proper. Subsequently, the Tribunal passed an award holding that the action of the Management was justified and the demand of the concerned workman for reinstatement with full back wages was not at all justified. 4. The said award of the Tribunal was challenged before this Court in CWJC No. 2657 of 1997(R), which was allowed and the award of the Tribunal was set aside. The matter was remanded back for passing a fresh award on the ground that the Tribunal did not reappraise the materials on record as required under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. 5. After the remand, the Industrial Tribunal by the impugned award has held that there was no infirmity in the order of dismissal of the concerned workman and the demand of the concerned workman for reinstatement with full back wages is not justified and he is not entitled to any relief. This impugned award of the Industrial Tribunal has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition mainly on the ground that in the criminal case, which was lodged for the same very offence/ charge, he was acquitted from the charges and also that he has been discriminated because the other person namely T.C. Prasad, who was also dismissed from service by the Management has been reinstated in service with 50% of back wages by the Tribunal in Reference Case No. 91/ 1990, whereas in case of the petitioner a different view has been taken by the Tribunal. 7. On the other hand, Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Management submitted that the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is perfectly valid and justified since the Tribunal in his detailed award has elaborately discussed the evidence and materials on record and, thereafter, has come to the finding of fact holding the concerned workman to be guilty of the charges and, therefore, there is no scope for any interference by this Court. 8. 8. In order to test the submissions of the counsel for the parties, I have minutely gone through the impugned award and find that the Tribunal, after considering the evidence of all the nine witnesses examined to prove the charges, has held that from reappraisal of the evidence adduced in the case proved the active complicity of the concerned workman Manoj Kumar Sinha in getting 11 persons/candidates inducted in the employment of B.C.C.L. On the basis of forged and fabricated appointment letters under the forged signature of R.P. Singh, Deputy Personnel Manager (Manpower) of BCCL. The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence has further held that the actually this petitioner was a Typist cum-Clerk in the Civil Construction Department and though he had no business to poke his nose in the matter of appointment and posting but he in active connivance with V.A. Singh, Deputy Personnel Manager (Manpower) inducted fake appointees in the employment of M/s BCCL and, thereby, caused loss to the company and has committed breach of faith and dishonesty. 9. From the award passed by the Tribunal in the case of one T.C. Prasad, who was a permanent clerk of the personnel section of that area, annexed as Annexure-9 to the writ petition, it appears that the Tribunal held that the said workman may not have known about the forgery committed and, therefore, it was held that he was entitled to be reinstated whereas the case of the present petitioner Manoj Kumar Sinha stands on a quite different footings. 10. From the impugned award passed by the Tribunal in the case of the present petitioner it appears from the evidence on record it transpired that though the petitioner was posted in the Civil Construction Department and had no business to poke his nose in the matter of appointment and posting but he typed forged appointment letter on his typewriter allotted to him and he accompanied those appointees to the area office alongwith forged appointment letter and also deposited the appointment letters for issuing posting orders. 11. 11. Therefore, this petitioner played active role in inducting those persons employment on the basis of forged appointment letters whereas against the aforesaid T.C. Prasad, who has been ordered to be reinstated the evidence was not such to establish that he played active role in commission of the grave misconduct rather the Tribunal came to the conclusion that he might have known about the forgery. Therefore, in my view, the case of the petitioner cannot be equated with the case of T.C. Prasad. 12. So far the plea of acquittal in the criminal case is concerned, it is a settled law that only on the ground that a delinquent has been acquitted from the criminal charge, does not mean that he has to be exonerated in the departmental proceeding. In a criminal trial, the charge has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts, whereas the departmental proceeding is decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. 13. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any error in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal against the petitioner. Accordingly, having found no merit, this writ petition is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.