JUDGMENT V.N. Sinha, J. None appears for the petitioner. Sri Vivekanand Singh appearing on behalf of the Respondent- Punjab National Bank (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) states that in the present matter, the Bank has entered appearance through Sri Sunil Kumar Singh No.1, who left for his heavenly above about two months earlier and thereafter information of such fact has already been given to the Management of the Bank but none has chosen to appear on behalf of the Bank. Earlier the case was dismissed for default for non-compliance of the orders of this Court dated 9.3.1998, whereafter the case was restored under orders dated 3.11.1999 and since then the matter is pending for hearing. As the petition was dismissed for default on the earlier occasion and the matter has remained pending for about 13 years, it is deemed expedient to peruse the record and dispose of the matter on merits considering the fact that the point raised in the writ petition is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vrs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another, reported in AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1416. 2. Petitioner at the relevant time served the Bank on the post of Peon-cum- Daftari in the Dehri-on-Sone Branch of the Bank and used to officiate as Leave Reserve Clerk as and when the Clerk serving at the different counter of the Bank proceed on leave. He is aggrieved by the order dated 6.4.1996, Annexure-1 passed by the Manager (Personnel), whereunder his request to reconsider his dismissal from the service of the Bank in the light of the findings recorded by the criminal court under judgment dated 29.1.1996, Annexure-1/1 has been rejected on the ground that even prior to his dismissal in the light of the findings arrived at in the departmental proceeding, he was acquitted by the criminal court under judgment dated 5.12.1986 in such circumstances, no reliance over the findings recorded in the judgment dated 29.1.1996, Annexure-1/1 can be placed for his reinstatement in the service of the Bank. 3. It appears, petitioner was made accused in a criminal case registered for the offence under Sections 420, 406 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that petitioner while working on ledger no. 3. It appears, petitioner was made accused in a criminal case registered for the offence under Sections 420, 406 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that petitioner while working on ledger no. 24 of savings fund made fictitious credit entries in his hand writing on different dates in the savings Bank Account No. 9746 of Surendra Kumar, details whereof is as follows: Date Amount for which fictitious entry made 30.7.1984 Rs. 2,000/- 22.9.1984 Rs. 4,000/- 08.10.1984 Rs. 14,000/- 25.10.1984 Rs. 35,000/- ---------------- Rs. 55, 000/- 4. Having made the fictitious entry, petitioner in collusion with Krishna Ram, part time Sweeper serving the Branch defrauded the Bank of ` 52,000/- by withdrawing ` 1500, 400, 2000, 2000, 100, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 4000, 3000, 2000, 25000 and 2000 on 17, 21, 27, 29.9.1984, 5, 12, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22.10.1984, 6, 9, 10, 19.11.1984. It was further alleged against the petitioner that a fictitious saving bank account No. 9746 was opened in the Dehri-on-Sone Branch of the Bank on 6.9.1983 with ` 11/- in which aforesaid fictitious deposit(s) and withdrawal(s) were made on different dates noted above. On the same allegation, a departmental proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner vide charge sheet dated 16.2.1987, Annexure-5. During the pendency of the departmental proceeding, petitioner was earlier acquitted in the criminal case, under judgment dated 5.12.1986, Annexure-4 without recording/ consideration of the evidence of the Bank officials who alleged fraud against the petitioner. After acquittal of the petitioner under judgment dated 5.12.1986, Bank preferred Cr. Revision No. 567 of 1987 against the order of acquittal dated 5.12.1986, Annexure-4, which was allowed under judgment dated 4.12.1991, Annexure-9. The High Court setting aside the judgment dated 5.12.1986, directed the trial court to examine the prosecution witnesses and consider the merit of the charge in the light of the evidence adduced by the prosecution/ Bank officials. While the trial in compliance of the remand order proceeded, petitioner was dismissed from service in the light of the findings recorded in the departmental proceeding pursuant to charge sheet dated 16.2.1987, Annexure-5. In compliance of the orders of the High Court dated 4.12.1991, Annexure-1, passed in Cr. While the trial in compliance of the remand order proceeded, petitioner was dismissed from service in the light of the findings recorded in the departmental proceeding pursuant to charge sheet dated 16.2.1987, Annexure-5. In compliance of the orders of the High Court dated 4.12.1991, Annexure-1, passed in Cr. Revision No. 567 of 1987, the trial court conducted de novo trial and examined the Bank officials, including the Branch Manager, who examined himself as P.W.7 as also produced ledger book and other documentary evidence so as to establish that fictitious credit entries were made in S.B. Account No. 9746 of Surendra Kumar and amount was withdrawn without there being any deposit in the account. During the trial, counsel for the petitioner as also the court asked the Branch Manager, P.W.7 to fix the identity of the Clerk who handled ledger no. 24 of Savings fund on different dates on which fictitious entries were made in S.B. Account No. 9746 of Surendra Kumar from the duty chart and other evidence produced in the trial. Similarly, the Branch Manager was also asked to clarify as to who was the Clerk, who was on leave on the date on which amount is shown to have been withdrawn and who handled the ledger as leave reserve. In this connection, trial court has quoted the evidenced of the Branch Manager, which is as follows: <span class="Hfont"> ^^eSa ugha dg ldrk fd ftu&2 frfFk;ksa dks Money defalcation <span class="Hfont"> fd;k x;k Fkk fake entries ledger <span class="Hfont"> esa dh x;h gS ml fnu dkSu&2 yksx NqV~Vh ij Fks o fdldk arrangement <span class="Hfont"> mu txgksa ij gqvk Fkk A** 5. Having perused the ledger book and other evidence, the trial court recorded a finding that on 6.9.1983 Account No. 9746 was opened by depositing ` 11/- and thereafter in the same account a sum of ` 2,000/- was deposited on 30.7.1984, ` 4,000/- on 22.9.1984,` 14,000/- on 8.10.1984 and ` 35,000/- on 25.10.1984. From the same amount ` 15,00/-400, 2000, 2000, 100, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 4000, 3000, 2000, 25000 and 2000 was fraudulently withdrawn on 17, 21, 27, 29.9.1984, 5, 12, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22.10.1984, 6, 9, 10, 19.11.1984. From the same amount ` 15,00/-400, 2000, 2000, 100, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 4000, 3000, 2000, 25000 and 2000 was fraudulently withdrawn on 17, 21, 27, 29.9.1984, 5, 12, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22.10.1984, 6, 9, 10, 19.11.1984. Having perused the ledger book along with the evidence of the Bank officials, criminal court further recorded a finding that there is nothing on record to establish that on the date of deposit and withdrawal of the aforesaid amount from the S.B. Account No. 9746, petitioner was officiating as ledger Clerk handling ledger no. 24 of Savings fund. Such finding was recorded by the trial court in the light of the evidence of the Branch Manager, P.W.7 noted above. After petitioner secured his acquittal in the criminal case, he requested the Disciplinary Authority to reconsider the order of dismissal in the light of the findings recorded by the trial court on the basis of the evidence of the Branch Manager and other Bank officials, including the documentary evidence i.e. ledger book. Aforesaid request has been rejected under the impugned order dated 6.4.1996, Annexure-1 holding that even earlier petitioner was acquitted under judgment dated 5.12.1986, Annexure-4, as such, his dismissal recorded in the disciplinary proceeding cannot be reconsidered in the light of the acquittal recorded under judgment dated 29.1.1996, Annexure-1/1. Petitioner has been dismissed from the service of the Bank in the light of the findings recorded in the departmental proceeding pursuant to charge sheet dated 16.2.1987, Annexure-5, which is exactly similar to the charge for which he was tried by the criminal court. Prior to the judgment dated 29.1.1996, he was dismissed on the basis of the findings recorded in the departmental proceeding, with reference to the evidence of the Branch Manager and other Bank officials supporting the allegation that fictitious deposits have been made in Account No. 9746 of ` 2,000/-, ` 4,000/-, ` 14,000/- and ` 35,000/- on 30.7.1984, 22.9.1984, 8.10.1984 and 25.10.1984, which was withdrawn on different dates noted above. 6. The trial court with reference to the evidence of the Branch Manager quoted above has concluded that there is no material on record to prove that it was the petitioner, who was officiating as the ledger Clerk who handled ledger no. 24 on different dates when fictitious entries of deposit, withdrawal was made in Account No. 9746. 6. The trial court with reference to the evidence of the Branch Manager quoted above has concluded that there is no material on record to prove that it was the petitioner, who was officiating as the ledger Clerk who handled ledger no. 24 on different dates when fictitious entries of deposit, withdrawal was made in Account No. 9746. In this connection, criminal court has dealt with the matter in detail in paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of its judgment and relying on those paragraphs, I set aside order dated 6.4.1996, Annexure-1 passed by the Manager (Personnel) of the Bank and direct the Bank to reconsider the reinstatement of the petitioner in the light of the evidence of the Branch Manager quoted above as the very foundation of the findings recorded against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceeding that it was the petitioner who was responsible for the fraudulent deposit, withdrawal of the amount from the account of Surendra Kumar stands obliterated in the light of the evidence of the Branch Manager, P.W.7 recorded in court on the basis of which the prosecution case has been thrown out by the criminal court. I have relied on the judgment of the trial court, as I am of the view that the criminal case as also the departmental proceedings were based on identical set of facts based on fraudulent deposit/ withdrawal from S.B. Account No. 9746 of Surendra Kumar. 7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.