JUDGMENT : M. Seetharama Murti, J. 1. This Writ Appeal by the unsuccessful writ petitioner is directed against the orders dated 05.09.2006 made in the Writ Petition No. 5589 of 2006. The sole appellant died during the pendency of this writ appeal and his legal representatives who are brought on record as appellants 2 to 5 are prosecuting this Writ Appeal. 2. The introductory facts, in brief, are as under: The deceased appellant worked as a casual driver on daily wages in the respondents-Corporation having been appointed on 13.03.1987. He was charge sheeted on 31.01.1988 for causing an accident on 01.11.1987 resulting in the instantaneous death of two persons and grievous injuries to three persons while driving the bus bearing Registration No. AAZ 4987 in a rash and negligent manner, and for having concealed the fact of the accident without informing the police or the Department and for having refused to take the injured persons in the bus to a hospital for providing medical aid. After conducting a regular departmental enquiry and after considering his explanation, the Depot Manager/the 4th respondent had removed the deceased appellant from service, vide proceedings dated 25.06.1988. Aggrieved of the said orders, the appellant had raised an industrial dispute in I.D. No. 11 of 1990. However, the Labour Court, by its award dated 26.03.1992, while dismissing ID had confirmed the order passed by the 4th respondent. The appellant had not challenged the said award of the Labour Court. After he was acquitted of the charges in the criminal case, he had filed an appeal before the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, Khammam and the said appeal was rejected, by an order dated 30.10.1999. He had then filed a petition for review before the Regional Manager, and the same was also rejected by an order dated 09.10.2000. The appellant filed the writ petition challenging the Award in ID 11 of 1990 as well as the subsequent orders referred to above. The respondents opposed the writ petition. A learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. 3. The appellant filed the writ petition challenging the Award in ID 11 of 1990 as well as the subsequent orders referred to above. The respondents opposed the writ petition. A learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. 3. Sri Kowturu Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the charges levelled against the deceased appellant in the criminal case as well as in the disciplinary proceedings are one and the same and that the deceased appellant was acquitted in the criminal case, by a judgment dated 20.08.1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam in Criminal Appeal No. 108 of 1994, and that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated the subsequent events and allowed the writ petition. He submits that the delay in filing the writ petition was properly explained and that the subsequent events in regard to the acquittal recorded in his favour by the criminal Court ought to have been taken into account. It is urged that the learned Single Judge did not appreciate the vital aspect that the finding of acquittal that was recorded in favour of the writ petitioner in the criminal appeal was not considered by the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager and the Regional Manager, in the appeal and review proceedings. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 to 4, on the other hand, submits that it is not the case of the appellant that there is any fundamental procedural irregularity in the domestic enquiry and that in the absence of any such averment, there was no basis to file the writ petition, particularly when the enquiry officer considered the entire material and evidence of the witnesses on record and held that the charges levelled against the appellant are proved and the disciplinary authority passed orders of removal of the appellant from service. He submits that the Labour Court had also re-appreciated the entire evidence on record and had confirmed the orders of removal passed by the 4th respondent and had dismissed the I.D. No. 11 of 1990 and that thereafter, the appellant belatedly approached this Court and filed the writ petition on the sole basis that he was acquitted by the appellate court in the criminal appeal. He contends that the acquittal in the criminal appeal does not give the appellant, a right to challenge the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority. 5. He contends that the acquittal in the criminal appeal does not give the appellant, a right to challenge the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority. 5. We have given earnest consideration to the facts and the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. After a detailed and regular departmental enquiry, the appellant was removed from service through proceedings dated 25.06.1988. The industrial dispute raised by him in I.D. No. 11 of 1990 was dismissed by the Labour Court through award dated 26.03.1992, and the Labour Court confirmed the orders passed by the 4th respondent-Depot Manager. However, the appellant did not challenge the award. It was only after his acquittal in the criminal appeal that he filed an appeal before the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, APSRTC and that was rejected, through orders dated 30.10.1999. The review petition filed by him before the Regional Manager was also rejected on 09.10.2000. Thereafter, the writ petition, filed by him belatedly was dismissed. 6. As rightly pointed out, it is not the case of the appellant that there is any procedural irregularity in the domestic enquiry. On the mere ground that he was acquitted by the criminal court in a criminal appeal fort the same charges which were also levelled against him in the departmental enquiry, an employee does not get a right to assail the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority. It is not in dispute that the evidence adduced by the disciplinary authority before the enquiry officer was different from the one that was let in by the prosecution in the criminal case. The standard of proof in a criminal case is 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' whereas, in a disciplinary enquiry, the approach and the objectives are different and a proof of the standard of 'preponderance of probabilities' is sufficient. The authorities below including the review authority having taken into consideration, the seriousness of the act of the deceased-appellant and his inhuman attitude towards the injured victims rejected his explanation and appeals successively. Having objectively considered all the aspects and taking into account, the fact that the writ petition was filed after a lapse of about five years five months, after the rejection order in the review petition on 09.10.2000, a learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition on merits. Having objectively considered all the aspects and taking into account, the fact that the writ petition was filed after a lapse of about five years five months, after the rejection order in the review petition on 09.10.2000, a learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition on merits. It was held inter alia that the appellant failed to show sufficient reasons for the inordinate delay in approaching the Court, invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The appellants, who are the legal representatives of the deceased driver, are not able to make out any grounds warranting interference with orders passed in the writ petition. 7. We do not find any merit in this Writ Appeal and accordingly dismiss the same. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed. Appeal dismissed