JUDGMENT Per S.U. KHAN, J Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner was a clerk-cum-cashier in Punjab National Bank. There were allegations of embezzlement of lacs of rupees against the petitioner. Accordingly, charge-sheet was given to the petitioner. Enquiry was held in which he did not participate. The Inquiry Officer gave a report against the petitioner Accordingly, he was dismissed from service without notice. The punishment was confirmed by senior Regional Manager/Disciplinary authority through order dated August 30, 2000 which was confirmed in appeal through order dated December 7, 2000. The said orders have been challenged through this writ petition. 2. Petitioner admits that inspite of several s notices he did not participate in the inquiry proceedings. The only point raised in the writ petition and argued at the time of hearing was that for the charges levelled against the petitioner a First Information Report had also been lodged against the petitioner and in consequence thereof criminal case No. 7261/1999 was initiated against the petitioner which was pending when enquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer hence by virtue of Rules 19.3 and 19.4 of bipartite settlement between banks and their workmen, disciplinary proceedings should not have been initiated or continued against the petitioner. It has been stated in the counter affidavit and argued by learned counsel for the respondents that the charges in the two proceedings i.e. criminal case and disciplinary proceedings were different. In the criminal case petitioner was acquitted. Copy of the judgment delivered by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad on April 30, 2002 in criminal case No. 7261 of 1999 - State v. Ashok Kumar Saxena has been filed as annexure R.A.-2 to the rejoinder affidavit. Its typed copy has also separately been supplied. 3. Charge-sheet given in disciplinary proceedings to the petitioner is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Charge-1 in the charge-sheet Annexure-3 is the same as the charges framed against the petitioner in the criminal case. Under charge-l the allegation was that several account holders whose names are mentioned therein deposited certain amounts which were noted on their passbooks also by the petitioner. However, petitioner pocketed the said amounts, did not deposit the same in the Bank and did not enter the said amounts in the registers of the Bank. The names given in the judgment of the criminal case and in Annexure-3 under charge No. 1 are exactly same amounts are also same. 4. However, petitioner pocketed the said amounts, did not deposit the same in the Bank and did not enter the said amounts in the registers of the Bank. The names given in the judgment of the criminal case and in Annexure-3 under charge No. 1 are exactly same amounts are also same. 4. However, as far as other charges in the charge- sheet Annexure-3 are concerned they were not subject matter of criminal trial. Charge No.2 in Annexure-3 is regarding withdrawal of an amount of Rs.3,000/- from the account of Smt. Shashi Kala Kannaujia by fabricating her signatures on the withdrawal form. Charge No. 2 is regarding misappropriation of Rs.20,000/-deposited by Smt. Malti. Petitioner had issued fixed deposit receipt to Smt. Malti but did not deposit the said amount in the bank nor made any entries in the registers of the Bank and that petitioner issued fake Fixed Deposit Receipts to Smt. Malti after stealing blank F.D.R. Book from the Bank. Charge No. 4 in Annexure-3 is regarding withholding of money by two account holders Jaheer Alam and Smt. Shashi Kala Kannaujia and depositing the same after a long time i. e. temporary embezzlement. As far as matter relating to Smt. Shashi Kala Kannaujia is concerned, it was not subject matter of criminal case. As far as temporary embezzlement of the two amounts deposited by Zahir Alam i.e. Rs.35,000/- on November 26, 1995 and January 1, 1996 and Rs.45,000/- deposited on December 22, 1995 are concerned they were neither subject matter of criminal case nor mentioned under charge-1 in Annexure-3. Another deposit of Rs. 33,000/made by Jaheer Alam on January 11, 1996 was subject matter of criminal case and charge No. 1. Charge No.5 was that various debit, credit entries were made by the petitioner in the pass books of various customers frequently with ulterior motives even though these entries were to be made by teller/ledger keeper. 5. Accordingly, it is quite clear that apart from charge No.1 in the charge-sheet given in departmental proceeding Annexure-3 to the writ petition, other charges were quite distinct from the charges framed against the petitioner in criminal proceedings. 6. Petitioner admits that in spite of sufficient notice he did not participate in the disciplinary proceedings. The allegations that the charges in departmental proceedings were same as were framed against him in the criminal case has been found to be wrong in. 6. Petitioner admits that in spite of sufficient notice he did not participate in the disciplinary proceedings. The allegations that the charges in departmental proceedings were same as were framed against him in the criminal case has been found to be wrong in. the earlier part of this judgment. 7. Accordingly, absolutely no fault can be found with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and dismissal order. Full opportunity was given to the petitioner which he did not avail. Charges levelled against the petitioner and found proved (even apart from charge No.1) are of such nature which could warrant no lesser punishment than dismissal. Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petition hence it is dismissed. Petition dismissed.