A.K. Goel, CJ.— 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition challenging punishment imposed in departmental proceedings on the ground that the appellant was acquitted in criminal case in which case the departmental proceedings could not proceed under the Arunachal Pradesh Police (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 ('the Rules'). 2. The appellant was employed as a constable and posted at a Police Station. It was alleged that he committed misconduct or dereliction of duties which led to escapement of under-trial prisoners from custody. The said charge was established in departmental proceedings and ultimately punishment of reduction in rank by 5 stages was imposed under the Rules. 3. Aggrieved thereby the appellant approached this court under article 226 of the Constitution on the ground that no punishment could be imposed departmentally against a police official, who was acquitted by criminal court on the evidence cited in the criminal case unless the charge had failed on technical ground, the witnesses had been won over, judgment was based on suspicion, evidence was unconnected with the charge or additional evidence was available in the departmental proceedings. 4. Case of the appellant was contested by submitting that acquittal of the appellant was on technical grounds and that sufficient evidence was produced in the departmental proceedings in support of the charge which was not the same evidence as was before the court in criminal proceedings. 5. Learned Single Judge upheld the plea of the State and dismissed the writ petition. It was held : "Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties, it is to be noted that the scope of interference of this court in departmental proceeding is now well settled that the High Court can neither sit in an appeal with regard to the departmental proceeding nor interfere with it except where the findings are mala fide or perverse. It is also well settled law that the powers of the disciplinary authority to impose punishment for misconduct on the delinquent employee subsist even after acquittal of the said employee in a criminal case instituted against him/her on the same set of facts. It is also well settled law that the powers of the disciplinary authority to impose punishment for misconduct on the delinquent employee subsist even after acquittal of the said employee in a criminal case instituted against him/her on the same set of facts. It has also been held by the Apex Court in a case (2011) 9 SCC 94 that acquittal in a criminal case has no hearing or relevance to departmental proceedings as standard of proof in both cases is totally different in a criminal proceeding, prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt whereas in departmental proceedings, the department has to prove its case only on preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, when the departmental proceedings or procedures have been conducted fairly without bias and with due compliance of disciplinary rules, such orders cannot be interfered with by this court under article 226 of the Constitution of India." 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. The rule in question is as follows : "Action following judicial acquittal. — When a police official tried and acquitted by a criminal court, he shall not be punished departmentally on the same charge or on a different charge upon the evidence1 cited in the criminal case, whether actually led or not unless : (1) the criminal charge has failed on technical grounds, or (2) in the opinion of the court, or the Superintendent of Police, the prosecution witnesses have been won over, or (3) the court has held in its judgment that an offence was actually committed and that suspicion rests upon the police official concerned, or (4) the evidence cited in the criminal case disclose facts unconnected with the charge before the court which justify departmental proceedings on a different charge, or (5) additional evidence for departmental proceedings is available." 8. Operative part of order passed by the criminal court is as follows : "(18) The court is not aware of the deployment system of Police administration for such Judicial Custody/UTP Cell in Arunachal Pradesh. However, the system being followed by Police department needs to be reviewed and minimum three duty personnel/or inner, outer and rear security of such UTP cell be deployed. Number of UTPs kept in UTP Cell at the relevant period should have also been noted before deployment of Police Force. However, the system being followed by Police department needs to be reviewed and minimum three duty personnel/or inner, outer and rear security of such UTP cell be deployed. Number of UTPs kept in UTP Cell at the relevant period should have also been noted before deployment of Police Force. (19) On careful consideration of the circumstances of the particular case, as discussed above, I do not find any identical negligent in the performance of his given duty by accused Bamin Hniya. Further other co-accused persons charged in the charge sheet, practically cannot fix responsibility as the deployment was on rotational basis against specified hours. Therefore, all five accused, namely, L/NK K.K. Wangsu, (2) Ct. Mama Somu, (3) Ct. T. Chami, (4) Ct. T. Gyadu, and (5) Ct. B. Haniya charged under section 223, IPC are hereby acquitted from this case. Meaning thereby all accused are discharged from the charges brought against them in connection with Miao PS Case No.45/2002." 9. The enquiry officer recorded the following finding : "The whole episode behind escape of UTP from Judicial lock-up Miao started on 25.12.2002 while Shri Kalicharan Guwala, the meal supplier entered the Judicial lock-up with a bucket of meal and other utensils at 1700 hrs. to serve meals, to the UTP's. As usual, the sentry on duty Ct. Bamin Hniya opened the central door to usher Shri Kalicharan Guwala in UTPs Cells. As soon as the meal supplier was entering the door, one of the UTP caught hold of him, gave him few quick slaps and flung him on the floor. Then the other UTP also joined and all of them jumped over duty constable B. Hnia. One of the UTP Mungpu Ngemu caught hold of the rifle of Ct. Hnia while two others, namely, Arup Morang and Sri Mangto Maite pounced upon the sentry and gave fist blows tiff the sentry fell on one of the cot. The incident took place in such a quick succession that both the sentry and meal supplier floundered. Thus, the six UTP's escaped the Judicial lock up checked the duty detailment register and have found that on 25.12.2002 the following constables were detailed at judicial lock up Miao. 1. L/Nk K.K. Wangsa Guard Commander - 24 hrs. 2. Const. Tan? Gyadu 10.00 hrs. to 12.00 hrs. and 18.00 hrs. to 2000 hrs. and 0200 to 0400 hrs. 3. Const. Mama Sono 1200 hrs. 1. L/Nk K.K. Wangsa Guard Commander - 24 hrs. 2. Const. Tan? Gyadu 10.00 hrs. to 12.00 hrs. and 18.00 hrs. to 2000 hrs. and 0200 to 0400 hrs. 3. Const. Mama Sono 1200 hrs. to 1400 hrs, 2000 hrs. to 2200 hrs. and 0400 hrs. to 0600 hrs. 4. Const. T. Changmi 1400 hrs. to 1600 hrs., 2200hrs. to 2400 hrs. and 0600 hrs. to 0800 hrs. 5. Const. Bamin Hnia 1600 hrs. to 1800 hrs., 2400 hrs. to 0200 hrs. and 0600 hrs. to 0800 hrs. On the date of incident all the constables including the guard commander were not present in the duty place except duty constable Bamin Hnia. It is admitted by all the constables including L/NK K.K. Wangsa that they were properly briefed by the senior officers time-to-time in respect of the duty at Judicial custody with a direction that under no circumstances the door of the UTP Cell should be opened by the duty constable alone without presence of guard commander and other duty constables. It is a tact that all the duty constables including guard commander except duty Ct. Bamin Hnia could have waited for the arrival of the guard commander and could have called another Const. Mama Sono who was staying nearby Judicial lock-up. In fact, he did not do so. However, I have found no satisfactory explanation from any of the delinquent Bn personnel for remaining absent from Judicial lock up by all of them at a time. Hence, the charges brought against them are proved. They all are jointly liable and more or less all of them are liable behind escape of the UTPs from the judicial lock-up." 10. Question for consideration is whether the rule relied upon altogether debars a departmental enquiry in the matter, in our view the answer is in the negative. Acquittal in a criminal case is no bar to departmental proceedings and the approach adopted in considering a criminal charge is different from approach adopted in the departmental proceedings. The standard of proof required is not the same. The bar under rule 18 is to proceed on the basis of the evidence cited in the criminal case and making such evidence foundation of order of punishment in departmental proceedings except where the case falls in exception to the rule. It does not meet the action based on evidence independently led in the departmental proceedings. The bar under rule 18 is to proceed on the basis of the evidence cited in the criminal case and making such evidence foundation of order of punishment in departmental proceedings except where the case falls in exception to the rule. It does not meet the action based on evidence independently led in the departmental proceedings. Assuming that the case does not fall in any of the exceptions, where the charge is established, the bar contained in the rule could have no application to departmental proceedings taken independently. 11. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed. _____________