ORDER 1. This petition was filed in the year 2012 and is yet to be admitted. The matter was listed on 18.7.2012 when the learned counsel for the petitioner took time to file certain judgments. Today when the case is taken up, none appears and therefore we have perused the record and are deciding the matter based on material available on record. 2. In this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is made to an order dated 13.2.2012, passed by the M.P. Co-operative Tribunal in First Appeal No.29/2008, whereby the appeal filed by the respondent/Bank under the provisions of M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 has been allowed and an order passed by the competent authority namely Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rewa in a proceedings held under section 55(2) read with section 64 of the Cooperative Societies Act,1960 has been interfered with. 3. Facts in brief go to show that the petitioners herein are the legal heirs of late Rudrapal Singh, who was working in the Bank, as a Lower Division Clerk. He committed various financial irregularities while discharging his duties, as a result a charge sheet was issued to him, departmental inquiry was conducted and based on the findings recorded against him in the departmental inquiry, his services were terminated vide order dated 30.4.1974. However as the act of late Rudrapal Singh, also amounted criminal office, FIR was registered with police stations Anooppur and Shahdol and a case under sections 420, 409 and 459 was registered against him and he was prosecuted. It seems that after trial he was convicted for the offence by the trial Court but on 8.1.2004, the appellate Court acquitted him. After his acquittal he sought for his reinstatement mainly on the ground that as the allegations levelled in the charge-sheet and the departmental inquiry was similar, now after his acquittal he is entitled to be taken back in service. When nothing was done, he raised a dispute before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies and vide order dated 15.10.2007 (Annexure P-2), the Joint Registrar simply held that in view of his acquittal in the criminal case, the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service and quashed his termination directing for his reinstatement. However, while doing so, the Joint Registrar did not take note of the legal principles of law involved in such matter. However, while doing so, the Joint Registrar did not take note of the legal principles of law involved in such matter. The principles laid down in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. (1999) 3 SCC 679 , was not considered and even the fact as to whether the allegations in the charge sheet and the prosecution in the criminal case arose out of the set of fact, evidence and circumstances was not even considered, only on the ground that after acquittal he is entitled to be re-instated the order was passed, Even though the case of Capt.M.Paul Anthony (supra) was referred to by the Joint Registrar in his order but except for referring to the judgment he did not compare the allegations levelled in the charge sheet or the evidence etc. on which departmental inquiry was conducted. Did not evaluate the requirement of law with regard to finding out as to whether prosecution and the departmental inquiry arose out of the same set of facts and evidence. Therefore, when the appeal was filed before the Tribunal by the Bank, the Tribunal applied the principles of law as indicated herein above and held that merely acquittal in the criminal case will not entitle the employee of reinstatement and applying law in his correct prospective found that the employee is not entitled to any benefit and interfered into the matter. 4. Having gone though the record and after evaluating the reasons given by the Joint Registrar and the Tribunal, we are of the considered view that the Joint Registrar committed a grave error of law and interfered with the action taken in the disciplinary proceedings without evaluating the principles of law in its right prospective, merely because the employee was acquitted that by itself will not entitle him for reinstatement in service. The Joint Registrar did not evaluate the law in the backdrop of legal principles laid down in the various cases after judgment rendered in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra) and even the law laid down in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony(supra) was not properly applied. There is nothing in the material produced before us to say that the prosecution in the criminal case and the departmental proceedings which culminated in termination of service in the year 1974 was result of same facts, evidence and circumstances. M. Paul Anthony(supra) was not properly applied. There is nothing in the material produced before us to say that the prosecution in the criminal case and the departmental proceedings which culminated in termination of service in the year 1974 was result of same facts, evidence and circumstances. Merely because the employee is acquitted in the criminal case that does not mean that the departmental proceedings have to be quashed. Even the law permits initiating fresh departmental inquiry after the acquittal in the criminal case. That being so and keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in various cases particular in the cases of State of Rajasthan v. B. K. Meena (1996) 6 SCC 417 , Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. M.G.Vittal Rao, (2012)1 SCC 442 and State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya, (2011)4 SCC 584 , we are of the considered view that the Cooperative Tribunal has not committed any error in interfering with the order. 5. That apart the petitioner in this writ petition has not even bothered to file the proceedings of the departmental inquiry or the order of criminal Court acquitting him, even though on 18.7.12 he was granted time to file the judgment of acquittal, the same has not been brought on record. There is nothing on record available to show that on the same set of facts, evidence and material in the criminal case, he was acquitted, whereas in the departmental inquiry he has been punished. Accordingly, we see no reason to interferred into the matter. Therefore the petition stands dismissed.