Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was directly recruited, as Police Constable in the District Armed Reserve, Nagapattinam on 19.10.1987. While serving at the District Armed Reserve Police, he was deputed to Guard duty at the residence of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam. 2. It alleged, that the Office Assistant of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate sent a complaint on 03.10.2000 to the Duty Sub-Inspector, that the petitioner was always in drunken condition and lying naked in the guard room, which was even noticed by the wife of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, therefore, a request was made to send a substitute. 3. The petitioner was immediately relieved from his guard duty, and on return, he was directed by the Duty Sub-Inspector to report for sentry duty at 6.00 am on 04.10.2000. The petitioner failed to report for duty and also failed to attend roll call at 12:00 noon, thus remaining absent. 4. The petitioner thereafter came in drunken condition at 6.00 hours and questioned the Inspector as to how he was relieved from guard duty. A direction was issued to get the report from petitioner regarding his absence of sentry duty. The petitioner scolded him in filthy language and questioned as to how he was being sent to sentry duty and also threatened the Duty Sub-Inspector. 5. Thereafter the petitioner pushed the Inspector Kuppuraj and caught him by neck with colar. It was with great efforts, that the Inspector got himself released from his clutches. 6. A special report was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam on 05.10.2000. A criminal case was also registered vide Crime No.613 of 2000 under Section 332 IPC. The petitioner was also medically examined. 7. The petitioner was successful in getting anticipatory bail. 8. The petitioner was issued charge memo under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (D&A) Rules, 1955 on the above mentioned allegations. On denial by petitioner, the Deputy Superintendent of Police was appointed as Enquiry Officer to hold enquiry against petitioner. 9. The Enquiry Officer examined Thiru A.Kuppuraj, Inspector, who supported the prosecution story, and Thiru Senthil Kumar was also examined, who also supported the prosecution story. The prosecution also examined A.Mohanrajan, GR-I PC177. The incident of misbehaving with the Inspector was also supported by him. Thiru P.G.Chandrasekaran, Inspector of Police was examined as witness no.4, who proved registration of criminal case against the petitioner. 10. The prosecution also examined A.Mohanrajan, GR-I PC177. The incident of misbehaving with the Inspector was also supported by him. Thiru P.G.Chandrasekaran, Inspector of Police was examined as witness no.4, who proved registration of criminal case against the petitioner. 10. The prosecution also examined Dr.John Sentil Kumar Pandian, who, after examining the petitioner, had reported that the petitioner smelt alcohol, but his walking was steady and he answered the question properly. It was however reported by the Medical Officer, that the petitioner refused to get blood and urine tested. The Medical Officer gave a "certificate of drunken" dated 04.10.2000. 11. The petitioner did not examine any witness in defense, but cross examined the prosecution witness. The enquiry officer on the basis of oral and documentary evidence held petitioner guilty of charges. 12. The competent authority agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and imposed the punishment of dismissal from service, which is under challenge in this writ petition. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended, that the petitioner was not supplied with the document, mentioned in the charge memo, therefore, the enquiry was held in violation of principle of natural justice. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any application or request, which was made by petitioner, requesting for supply of documents, nor the reading of enquiry report shows if any such contention was raised. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted, being not supported either by documents or contentions before enquiry officer. 14. It was next contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, that the impugned order of dismissal cannot be sustained, as the petitioner was tried for the same set of allegation in the criminal case, where he was acquitted. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner was also that, the petitioner could not disclose his defense in the departmental enquiry, as it was likely to prejudice him in the criminal case. This contention cannot be accepted, as it is well settled law, that criminal and departmental proceedings can go on together. 15. The petitioner had also challenged the charge memo before the learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, in which interim stay was granted in favour of petitioner. This contention cannot be accepted, as it is well settled law, that criminal and departmental proceedings can go on together. 15. The petitioner had also challenged the charge memo before the learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, in which interim stay was granted in favour of petitioner. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that, in spite of stay by learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the respondent passed the impugned order of dismissal, by anti dating the order. It was contended, that the order of punishment was not passed on 24.02.2001. 16. In order to verify this contention, record of enquiry proceedings was summoned by this Court. The record shows, that the contention of learned counsel is misconceived. The order was passed on 24.02.2001 only and it was the petitioner, who by concealing this fact by successfully evading service of the order, approached the learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal for getting stay order. This contention by the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, also deserves to be rejected. 17. It was next contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, that it is only Inspector, who had deposed against petitioner in the enquiry report. Whereas all other witnesses did not support the prosecution case. This contention is contrary to record. The reading of enquiry report shows, that all the prosecution witnesses supported the allegations against petitioner and the finding of enquiry officer is based on appreciation of evidence. 18. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, that no drunken certificate was issued is also found to be false, as the Doctor, who examined the petitioner, appeared before the enquiry officer and produced the drunken certificate. The final contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, that the impugned order deserves to be set aside merely because of acquittal in the criminal case also cannot be sustained, as it is well settled, that mode of proof in the departmental proceedings and criminal case is different and an employee though acquitted in the criminal case can be held guilty in the departmental proceedings, as the finding in the departmental enquiry are based on the probabilities. 19. The charge against petitioner being of very serious in nature, the punishment awarded also cannot be said to be disproportionate to the proved charge. 20. Consequently, finding no merit in this writ petition, it is ordered to be dismissed. 21. No costs.