Judgment : A. Rajasheker Reddy, J. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.27031 of 1996, dated 14-02-2007 whereby writ petition is dismissed. 1. The appellant/writ petitioner joined in the respondent bank as a Peon in March, 1977 and he was promoted as a Clerk in 1982 and while so working at Gandhinagar Branch, Vijayawada, he was placed under suspension by an order dated 3-1-1991 on the ground that disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against him for certain alleged acts of misconduct. On 27-05-1991, the petitioner was issued a charge sheet alleging that while working in the D.Ds issue and paid Department at Gandhinagar Branch during December, 1989 to August, 1990, the specified demand draft leaves were missing and he failed to report the missing D.D leaves, except one of the missing D.D., leaves, the specified leaves were used for drawing D.Ds., favouring certain individuals named in the charge sheet, which were then en cashed to fictitious accounts in the names of the payees opened at several other branches of the bank. The petitioner was thus charged of indulging in fraudulent conduct inconsistent with the integrity required of an officer of a bank and as a consequence of such conduct defrauding the bank in a total amount of Rs.2,79,900/- (thus far detected). It was also alleged that a portion of the amount so obtained by the petitioner was utilized for discharging huge debts incurred by him. After enquiry, by order dated 31-3-1994, the disciplinary authority-the first respondent therein imposed punishment of dismissal on the appellant. Against the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal to the second respondent, which was rejected by order dated 8-8-1994. The appellant filed the present writ petition No.27031 of 1996 against the order of dismissal dated 31-3-1994. 2. A detailed counter affidavit was filed by the respondents contraverting the allegations made by the writ petitioner. It is stated that after following the procedure, enquiry was conducted and punishment was imposed and detailed narration of facts was given explaining the procedure followed in conducting enquiry and also passing impugned order. It is also stated that several opportunities were afforded to the petitioner to lodge his written submissions and as there was no response by the petitioner, eventually and after waiting for considerable time, the enquiry officer submitted his report. It is also stated that several opportunities were afforded to the petitioner to lodge his written submissions and as there was no response by the petitioner, eventually and after waiting for considerable time, the enquiry officer submitted his report. It is also stated that from the report of the enquiry officer it is clear that ample and adequate opportunity was provided at every stage of the proceedings to the appellant. On the basis of the evidence of M.E-2, it was established that the specified DD leaves were not accounted for and were missing in the branch. Hence they sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 3. The learned Single Judge after considering the issue and by order dated 14-02-2007 dismissed the writ petition, against the same, the present appeal is filed. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Siva vehemently contended that on the same set of charges, criminal proceedings were initiated against the appellant and ultimately the appellant was acquitted honourably by Judgement dated 21-01-1994 in C.C.No.343 of 1992 and the same was brought to the notice of the disciplinary authority before passing the order of dismissal dated 31-3-1994, but the disciplinary authority has not even dealt with the issue except making a passing reference of the same, which goes to show that there is no application of mind. He contends that as per the Judgment Apex Court reported in G.M. Tank V. State of Gujarat( (2006) 5 SCC 446 ),when there was an honourable acquittal of the employee during the pendency of the proceedings, challenging the dismissal, the same requires to be taken note of and the decision in Capt.M.Paul Anthony (1999) 3 SCC 679 will apply. When the criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings are initiated on identical charges, when Criminal Court acquitted the appellant honourably on the ground that entrustment of DDs to the appellant was not proved, then the disciplinary authority would have to consider the same as per the Judgment of the Supreme Court. He also contends that the disciplinary authority is required to furnish the copy of the enquiry officer’s report and solicit the remarks thereon from the appellant before coming to the conclusion as to the guilt or innocence of the delinquent. He also contends that the disciplinary authority is required to furnish the copy of the enquiry officer’s report and solicit the remarks thereon from the appellant before coming to the conclusion as to the guilt or innocence of the delinquent. In the present case, though remarks are called for from the appellant, but the same was sought for after the findings of the disciplinary authority., which is in violation of the Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and others V. B. Karunkar and others((1993( 4 SCC 727). In view of the same, there is violation of principles of natural justice. These aspects have not been considered by the Learned Single Judge as well as the authorities below, as such interference is called for in this writ appeal. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent bank contends that the nature of proof required in the disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings are not the same. Strict rules of evidence does not apply to departmental proceedings. Preponderance of probabilities is sufficient in disciplinary proceedings for imposing punishment. Whereas proof beyond reasonable doubt is required for conviction by the criminal court. As such, merely because the appellant is acquitted in criminal proceedings, it cannot be said that disciplinary proceedings have to be dropped. He contends that the Courts held that even after acquittal by the criminal Court, the employer can proceed with the disciplinary proceedings as the nature of charges in disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings are different. He contends that after enquiry officer submitted the report, the disciplinary authority differed on some findings of enquiry officer, the findings of disciplinary authority in respect of differing with the findings of enquiry officer along with the enquiry report was communicated to the appellant, as such, there is no violation of principles of natural justice. Only to the extent where the disciplinary authority differed with the findings of the enquiry officer, the said findings were communicated to the appellant along with the enquiry report, as such, there is no violation of principles laid down by the Apex Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and others V. B. Karunkar and others case. It is contended that the enquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority followed the procedure and imposed punishment. It is contended that the enquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority followed the procedure and imposed punishment. Serious charges are levelled and proved against the appellant, as such, no lenience can be shown to the appellant in imposing the punishment. 6. In the present case, the enquiry officer after examining several witnesses, came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the appellant are proved and the disciplinary authority also concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer and only in respect of certain issues it differed and as such, the disciplinary authority communicated the finding regarding the differment of enquiry report to the appellant and after considering the issue, imposed punishment of dismissal by order dated 31-3-1994. On the same issue, Criminal Proceedings were initiated against appellant and ultimately he was acquitted by Judgment dated 24-1-1994 in C.C.No.343 of 1992 by the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. When the same was brought to the notice of the disciplinary authority, the disciplinary authority while imposing punishment only observed that there is no bar in initiating/concluding departmental action, despite acquittal by the Court, but the said issue was not addressed by the disciplinary authority by giving reasons. Since the Apex Court in G.M. Tank V. State of Gujarat (cited first supra) at para 31 held:- “31. In our opinion, such facts and evidence in the departmental as well as criminal proceedings were the same without there being any iota of difference, the appellant should succeed. The distinction which is usually proved between the departmental, and criminal proceedings on the basis of the approach and burden of proof would not be applicable in the instant case. Though the finding recorded in the domestic enquiry was found to be valid by the courts below, when there was an honourable acquittal of the employee during the pendency of the proceedings challenging the dismissal, the same requires to be taken note of and the decision in Paul Anthony case will apply. We, therefore hold that the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed.” In Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.( (1999) 3 SCC 679 ) The Apex Court in para 34 held:- “34. There is yet another reason for discarding the whole of the case of the respondents. We, therefore hold that the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed.” In Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.( (1999) 3 SCC 679 ) The Apex Court in para 34 held:- “34. There is yet another reason for discarding the whole of the case of the respondents. As pointed out earlier, the criminal case as also the departmental proceedings were based on identical set of facts, namely, 'the raid conducted at the appellant's residence and recovery of incriminating articles therefrom.' The findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, a copy of which has been placed before us, indicate that the charges framed against the appellant were sought to be proved by Police Officers and Panch witnesses, who had raided the house of the appellant and had effected recovery. They were the only witnesses examined by the Inquiry Officer and the Inquiry Officer, relying upon their statements, came to the conclusion that the charges were established against the appellant. The same witnesses were examined in the criminal case but the court, on a consideration of the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that no search was conducted nor was any recovery made from the residence of the appellant. The whole case of the prosecution was thrown out and the appellant was acquitted. In this situation, therefore, where the appellant is acquitted by a judicial pronouncement with the finding that the "raid and recovery" at the residence of the appellant were not proved, it would be unjust, unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded at the ex- parte departmental proceedings, to stand.” The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the said fact was not dealt with by the disciplinary authority as well as the learned Single Judge. This aspect requires examination in view of the above judgment of the Supreme Court. On this ground alone, the matter required to be remitted to the disciplinary authority for taking appropriate decision on this aspect. 7. As far as providing opportunity for filing objections to the enquiry report is concerned, the appellant was communicated with the enquiry report along with the findings of the disciplinary authority on the issues, which he has differed with the enquiry officer. 7. As far as providing opportunity for filing objections to the enquiry report is concerned, the appellant was communicated with the enquiry report along with the findings of the disciplinary authority on the issues, which he has differed with the enquiry officer. As such, there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was not served with the enquiry report even before the disciplinary authority formed its opinion and as such, it cannot be said that the appellant was not given opportunity for filing objections against the enquiry report as envisaged by the Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and others V.B. Karunkar and others case. 8. No doubt, this Court cannot interfere with the findings of the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority by appreciating the evidence under the jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge also has gone into that aspect and even regarding interference with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority he came to the conclusion that the same cannot be interfered with. The learned Single Judge also by relying on the enquiry report came to the conclusion that the appellant was found guilty. But the aspect of acquittal though referred to by the learned Single Judge was not considered. In view of above cited Judgments of Supreme Court, we are of the opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge confirming the order of punishment is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority to examine the issue whether the disciplinary proceedings are liable to be dropped in view of the acquittal of appellant in C.C.No.343 of 1992 on the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate Vijayawada in view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in G.M. Tank V. State of Gujarat. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. Keeping in view the fact that the appellant is going to retire from service in near future, we direct the disciplinary authority to decide the issue as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.