JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J: Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner, who was a head clerk in the State Bank of India, Bhawanathpur Branch in the district of Palamau, was proceeded departmentally for the following charges:- (i) He perpetrated a fraud amounting Rs. 79,500/-by making 8(eight) fake credit entries in the Savings Bank Accounts with an ulterior motive and authenticated the resultant inflated balance arrived there against in an unauthorized manner. The details of such credit entries are furnished in Annexure-I. (ii) He deliberately passed the withdrawals for payment in S.B.A/c. No. 4289, although it was known to him that these withdrawals presented to the counter for payment, were issued against the inflated balance arrived against the fake credit entries fraudulently made by him. Subsequently, among these, five withdrawals passed by him; he received cash payment for a total sum of Rs. 27,000/-against the two withdrawals. The detailed particulars are furnished in Annexure-II. (iii) On 24.9.94, while balancing the S.B.A/c, he deliberately taken the balances of S.B.A/c No. 10055 and 1650 of S/Shri Majid Khan and Asha Tiwary and Dharanwant Sharma as Rs. 15,069 and Rs. 38,778.30 in the balance sheet where ledger sheets were showing balances of Rs. 30,069/-and Rs. 43,778.30 respectively. Adopting such modes operandi, he gave false certificate as on 4.10.94 that all the S.B.A/cs had been balanced, although he knew that S.B. A/c Nos. 10002 and 1649 were showing debit balances. This manipulation for Rs. 20,000./-was done by he in order to suppress the inflated balances though it has been created by he in the S.B.A/c Nos. 10002 and 1649 by inserting fake credit entries for Rs. 15,000/-and Rs. 5,000/-on 8.7.94 and 24.8.94 respectively” The charge sheet served on the petitioner has been annexed as Annexure-3 to this application. 3. For the said very offence a First Information Report was also lodged against the petitioner by the Branch Manager, State Bank, Bhawanathpur Branch, which was registered as Bhawanathpur P.S. Case No. 10 of 1996 under sections 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. While criminal case was pending, the petitioner was proceeded departmentally for the aforesaid charges. 3. For the said very offence a First Information Report was also lodged against the petitioner by the Branch Manager, State Bank, Bhawanathpur Branch, which was registered as Bhawanathpur P.S. Case No. 10 of 1996 under sections 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. While criminal case was pending, the petitioner was proceeded departmentally for the aforesaid charges. Enquiry Officer conducted the departmental enquiry, in which oral evidence as well as the documentary evidences were adduced on behalf of the parties and then enquiry officer on conclusion of the enquiry submitted its report as contained in Annexure-5, holding that the charges against the petitioner were proved and established. On the basis of the enquiry report, the Disciplinary authority by his order dated 29.11.1997 as contained in Annexure-9 to this writ application awarded punishment of dismissal from service to the petitioner after notice to the petitioner in terms of para 521 (5)(a) of the Sastry Award as retained in Desai Award. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order of punishment awarded by the Disciplinary authority preferred departmental appeal. The appellate authority by his detail speaking order-dated 01.11.1999 as contained in Annexure-10 to this writ application dismissed the appeal. 5. The petitioner has challenged those orders as contained in Annexure-9 dated 29.11.1997 passed by the Disciplinary authority as well as the order contained in Annexure-10 passed by the Appellate authority in this writ application. 6. Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in terms of Sastry Award when the First Information Report was already lodged for the same very offence and the criminal trial was already pending, then in that case the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner should have been stayed till the conclusion of the criminal trial, but inspite of staying further proceedings of the departmental proceeding, it proceeded and on conclusion thereof the petitioner was awarded punishment of dismissal from service, though subsequently, the criminal trial ended in acquittal since the charges under sections 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code could not be proved by the prosecution. 7. Mr. Sen further submitted that the whole case was based on the report of the handwriting expert. 7. Mr. Sen further submitted that the whole case was based on the report of the handwriting expert. It was the handwriting expert, who submitted his report proving the endorsement entries and signature of the petitioner on the withdrawal forms, but the said handwriting expert was not examined during the departmental enquiry and, therefore, the petitioner was greatly prejudiced, since the petitioner could not get any opportunity to cross-examine the the handwriting expert and, therefore, the whole departmental proceeding vitiated on that account alone. Mr. Sen further submitted that the procedure provided under para 521 of the Sastry Award was also not followed and therefore, it was in violation of para 521 of the Sastry Award. It was lastly submitted by Mr. Sen that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is disproportionate to the charges and in fact the charges alleged to have been established against the petitioner was not so grave. The punishment of dismissal from service is excessive. 8. The case of the Bank is that during the departmental proceeding two witnesses, namely, P.W.1 and P.W. 2 i.e. the Accountant and Branch Manager of the Bank were examined and they also affirmed those fake entries made in the Saving Bank Accounts of the wife of the petitioner as well as in the other Accounts were made by the petitioner and he only authenticated the fake entries so made and he was also instrumental in getting the amount withdrawn from the aforesaid Saving Bank Accounts. 9. From the enquiry report it also appears that he noticed the fact that even the defence counsel admitted that these fake entries were made by the petitioner C.S.P. Sinha, though he used the term ‘superfluous entries’ in place of fake entries. He also admitted that the amount has been made good and there is no loss to the Bank. 10. So far main point raised by Mr. Sen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner regarding continuance of the departmental enquiry during the pendency of the criminal trial is concerned, it is settled law that both proceedings i.e. criminal trial as well as the departmental proceeding are quite exclusive and independent to each other and the standard of proof in a departmental proceeding is quite different to that of standard of proof in a criminal trial. In a criminal trial it is required of establishing the charges beyond all reasonable doubts, whereas in the departmental proceeding on the basis of preponderance of probability a person can be held guilty. Reference in this regard may be made in the case of Noida Entrepreneurs Association Vs. Noida and others, reported in (2007) 10 Supreme Court Cases 385 and in the case Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs & Anr. Vrs. Tahir Ali Khan Tyagi, reported in 2002 (6) Supreme 274 . Therefore, in my view only because an accused is acquitted in a criminal trial that does not mean that in the departmental proceeding also he may be entitled to be exonerated on that ground. However, in the present case the fact is quite different. Here the petitioner was already punished in the departmental proceeding prior to his acquittal in the criminal trial. 11. So far as the next question whether during the pendency of the criminal trial, departmental enquiry should have been stayed and whether it was in violation of para 521 (3) of the Sastry Award. In this regard it is relevant to quote para 521 of the Sastry Award here in below:- “Para 521 (3) If after steps have been taken to prosecute an employee, or to get him prosecuted, for an offence he is not put on trial within a year of the commission of the offence, the management may then deal with him as if he had committed an act of “ gross misconduct” or of “minor misconduct” as defined below; provided that if the authority which was to start prosecution proceedings refuses to do so or comes to the conclusion that there is no case for prosecution it shall be open to the management to proceed against the employee under the provisions set out below in subparagraphs 9 and 10 infra relating to discharge, but he shall be deemed to have been on duty during the period of suspension, if any, and shall be entitled to the full wages and allowances and to all other privileges for such period. In the event of the management deciding, after enquiry, not to continue him in service, he shall be liable only for termination with three months’ pay and allowances in lieu of notice as directed in sub-paragraph (2) supra. In the event of the management deciding, after enquiry, not to continue him in service, he shall be liable only for termination with three months’ pay and allowances in lieu of notice as directed in sub-paragraph (2) supra. If within the pendency of the proceedings thus instituted he is put on trial such proceedings shall be stayed pending the completion of the trial, after which, the provisions mentioned in subparagraph (2) above shall apply” 12. From a bare perusal of paragraph 521 (3) of the Sastry Award, which was quoted above, it does not appear that if during the pendency of the criminal case a departmental proceeding has been initiated, the same should be stayed till the conclusion of the criminal trial. As a matter of fact, it envisages only this much that if any step has been taken to prosecute an employee or to get him prosecuted, for an offence he is not put on trial within a year of the commission of the offence, the management may then deal with him as if he had committed an act of “ gross misconduct” or of “minor misconduct” as defined; provided that if the authority which was to start prosecution proceedings refuses to do so or comes to the conclusion that there is no case for prosecution it shall be open to the management to proceed against the employee under the provisions set out in sub-paragraphs 9 and 10 infra relating to discharge. The use of the word made in this provisions clearly goes to show that the management may then deal with him as if he had committed an act of “ gross misconduct” or of “minor misconduct” as defined and this cannot be said to be mandatory in nature. Therefore, even if the argument of Mr. Sen is accepted then there was violation of para 521 (3) of the Sastry Award but that would not vitiate the departmental proceeding at all. 13. Therefore, even if the argument of Mr. Sen is accepted then there was violation of para 521 (3) of the Sastry Award but that would not vitiate the departmental proceeding at all. 13. The next point with regard to non-examination of handwriting expert in the departmental proceeding is concerned, it appears that when the Accountant and the Branch Manager of the Bank appeared and deposed as witnesses in the departmental proceeding to substantiate the fact that it was the petitioner, who made fake and fictitious entries in the Saving Bank Accounts in question and it was he, who authenticated those fake entries in the Saving Bank Accounts and it was he, who put his signature on the withdrawal forms then in my view, non-examination of the handwriting expert is of no value. It appears that there was overwhelming evidence both oral and documentary to prove the charge and on consideration of the same the charges were found to be established. Over and above in the present case as I have noticed above that even the defence counsel who appeared on behalf of the petitioner in the departmental proceedings also admitted that those disputed entries were made by the petitioner, therefore, there is no doubt that it was the petitioner, who made those fake entries and he was instrumental in getting the amount withdrawn from the Saving Bank Account. 14. Lastly coming to the question of quantum of punishment. In my view, as rightly submitted by Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Bank that in the cases of Banking service, loss of confidence of an employee is prime consideration in awarding the punishment. The image of the Bank comes to stake when a responsible employee like a Head Clerk indulges in gross misconduct and he makes entries in the Saving Bank Accounts by committing forgery in such case, in my view, the punishment of dismissal from service is the only punishment befitting with such misconduct. Therefore, in my view, the punishment of dismissal of the petitioner from service cannot be said to be disproportionate or excessive to the charges levelled against him. No case is made out to interfere with the order passed by the Disciplinary authority dated 29.11.1997 contained in Annexure-9 as well as the order of the appellate authority dated 1st November 1999 contained in Annexure-10 to this writ application. 15. No case is made out to interfere with the order passed by the Disciplinary authority dated 29.11.1997 contained in Annexure-9 as well as the order of the appellate authority dated 1st November 1999 contained in Annexure-10 to this writ application. 15. In view of the discussions and findings I find no merit in this writ application, it is, accordingly, dismissed. 16. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to the costs.