ORDER The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Kaimur at Bhabhua, by which he has been dismissed from service, which order has not been interfered by the Divisional Commissioner or Member Board of Revenue. 2. Petitioner was a Revenue Karamchari at that time posted at Bhagwanpur Circle in the district of Kaimur. He was charged with making false entry in Register-II with regard to transfer of ownership of a particular property. Upon protest by the person, it was subsequently corrected. This was brought to the notice of the Collector who issued show cause to the petitioner, inter alia, alleging that the petitioner, being custodian or records, had made false entry. Petitioner submitted his show cause taking a defence that he had done this on basis of the oral orders of the Circle Officer. Before the Circle Officer could sign the order he had been transferred. Nevertheless, the order was then issued by the petitioner. The Collector not being satisfied initiated departmental proceedings and, upon conclusion, the enquiry report along with another show cause with dismissal was served on the petitioner. Petitioner responded, which was not accepted and, accordingly, he ordered to be dismissed. The appeal to the Divisional Commissioner and to the Member Board of Revenue was without success. 3. A supplementary affidavit has been filed stating that the aforesaid wrong allegedly committed by the petitioner a criminal case was also instituted which has subsequent to the said orders ended in acquittal recently. 4. Sri Keshav Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the writ petition submits that in terms of Rule-167 (e & g) of the Boards Miscellaneous Rule before passing an order of dismissal the Collector should have looked into service records of the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner had not been paid his subsistence allowance and lastly in view of the acquittal in criminal case the order of dismissal cannot stand. 5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that this Court is not exercising appellate jurisdiction. It is exercising jurisdiction of judicial review which does not examine the judgment on merit but the procedural fairness thereof. He further submits that a reference to the criminal case would show that the petitioner was given benefit of doubt. That would not bind these disciplinary proceedings. 6. It is exercising jurisdiction of judicial review which does not examine the judgment on merit but the procedural fairness thereof. He further submits that a reference to the criminal case would show that the petitioner was given benefit of doubt. That would not bind these disciplinary proceedings. 6. Having heard the parties and with their consent, the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. 7. In my view, no case is made out for interference in this jurisdiction. Firstly, in respect of acquittal in criminal case, it is well established that criminal proceedings are based on proof beyond reasonable doubt. Whereas, the disciplinary proceedings proceeds on basis of preponderance of evidence. Therefore, on same set of material there may be acquittal in the criminal case but an extreme punishment can also be awarded in the disciplinary proceedings. Merely because there has been an acquittal in criminal case that does not follow that the disciplinary proceedings must end favourably to the petitioner. As noted above, it is on basis of doubt that the petitioner has been acquitted. That cannot inure to the benefit of the petitioner so far as the disciplinary proceedings are concerned. 8. Looking to the pleadings itself, it is apparent that petitioner set up a defence that the Circle Officer had orally instructed him to pass certain orders. Having taken the onus upon himself, later it was upon the petitioner to establish his defence. He failed in that. At no point of time he asked the authorities to enquire the matter from the Circle Officer concerned. Even otherwise, no executive work can be done on basis of oral instructions or direction as has been held by this Court in the case of M/s Shibshankar Dokania Oil, Rice and Flour Mills, Barharwa versus State of Bihar & Ors. since reported in AIR 1981 Patna 355. 9. In that view of the matter, the petitioner’s defence, having not been established by the petitioner, the authorities cannot be faulted for finding him guilty. Next, it was submitted that petitioner having been put under suspension, he was not paid subsistence allowance. In my view, that is of no consequence inasmuch as at no point of time petitioner ever pleaded that having not received subsistence allowance he was unable to defend his case. He filed his show cause. Next, it was submitted that petitioner having been put under suspension, he was not paid subsistence allowance. In my view, that is of no consequence inasmuch as at no point of time petitioner ever pleaded that having not received subsistence allowance he was unable to defend his case. He filed his show cause. He was duly noticed with the enquiry report and asked to file a second show cause as against proposed punishment of dismissal. He had full opportunity and he did take advantage of other such opportunities. Thus, in my view, there has been no procedural unfairness. 10. It is next submitted that the punishment having not been imposed after seeing the service records, as contemplated by Rule-167 of the Boards Miscellaneous Rule, the punishment would vitiated. Having examined the said Rule, in my view, the Rule is not mandatory. It is only directory or at best recommendatory. If upon the charge proved by itself a major punishment can be imposed then whether the employee had unblemished record or not is really of no consequence. 11. In the facts of the present case, it is relevant that what the petitioner did that virtually deprived a citizen of property in a manner unknown to law. That is a serious matter and if in that situation the authorities took a serious view who imposed an extreme penalty, I do not think and it cannot be said that it was either disproportionate to the dereliction or shocking to the conscience of the Court. 12. In that view of the matter, I find no merit in this application. It is dismissed accordingly.