Judgment : K. Ravichandrabaabu, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order of dismissal from service passed by the first respondent dated 22.04.2009, confirmed by the Appellate Authority by order dated 16.06.2009 as well as by the Revisional Authority by order dated 26.10.2009. 2. The petitioner was working as a Constable in CISF Unit, NLC, Neyveli. He was placed under suspension on 30.09.2006 with effect from 28.09.2006 on the reason that a criminal case was under investigation against him. On 10.03.2008, he was issued with a charge memo stating that he had close link and had been maintaining unwarranted contact with a dubious integrity person, namely, Ramesh which had resulted into the arrest of the petitioner by the Police and filing of charge against him before the Criminal Court in connection with the major theft of plant property of 679 meters of conveyor belts worth about Rs. 21,57,000/-, from Mine-I Conveyor yard of NLC Neyveli. The petitioner denied the charge and gave his explanation. Not being satisfied with the explanation, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the domestic enquiry. The Enquiry Officer, after examination of the witnesses and after affording full and effective opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine them, found the charges proved and submitted his report on 26.02.2009. Consequent upon the enquiry report, a final order was passed on 22.04.2009 by the first respondent dismissing the petitioner from service. An appeal preferred before the second respondent came to be rejected on 16.06.2009. Further revision filed before the third respondent also was dismissed on 26.10.2009. Aggrieved against those orders, the present writ petition is filed before this Court. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is knowing only Kannada language whereas the entire proceedings were conducted either in Hindi or English language and therefore, the petitioner was denied of reasonable opportunity to take effective part in the enquiry proceedings. He further submitted that the charge levelled against the petitioner was only to the effect that he was having contact with the accused person in a theft case and no direct charge of theft was alleged against him. When the Criminal Court has acquitted the petitioner as well as the other accused person by name Ramesh, punishment imposed on the petitioner viz., dismissal from service is not in proportion with the charge framed against him. When the Criminal Court has acquitted the petitioner as well as the other accused person by name Ramesh, punishment imposed on the petitioner viz., dismissal from service is not in proportion with the charge framed against him. On the above grounds, the learned counsel prayed for setting aside the order of dismissal from service. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was given reasonable opportunity in the enquiry proceedings and that the contention regarding the language in which the enquiry was conducted, is not correct. He further submitted that the calls made between the petitioner and the said accused Ramesh on the day of theft as well as on the other days were proved by producing the evidence obtained from BSNL and therefore, the punishment of dismissal from service was rightly imposed on the petitioner and therefore, there is no need to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the respondents. 5. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record. 6. Let us first consider the first objection raised by the petitioner viz., the enquiry proceedings was conducted in a language not known to him. 7. We have gone through the materials placed before us, more particularly, the final order passed on 22.04.2009, wherein at paragraph 5(e), the Disciplinary Authority has dealt with in detail with regard to the very same issue and found that the petitioner was only trying to stall the proceedings somehow by raising such ground. It is pointed out by the Disciplinary Authority that the petitioner was issued with the charge memo on 10.03.2008 in English and on receipt of such charge memo, he had submitted his reply on 20.03.2008 in English. Further, the Enquiry Officer recorded the preliminary hearing in English after explaining him the recording in Hindi, which the petitioner accepted to be correct. It was also pointed out that during preliminary hearing, the Enquiry Officer has asked the petitioner as to whether he received the charge memo and whether he understood the charges framed against him and whether he submitted his reply to the charge memo. For such queries, the petitioner had replied that he received the charge memo and understood the Article of charge and submitted his reply in English. For such queries, the petitioner had replied that he received the charge memo and understood the Article of charge and submitted his reply in English. It is further seen that during the enquiry, the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to cross examine the Prosecution Witnesses. The entire disciplinary enquiry proceedings was recorded in English language after explaining the recordings to the petitioner in Hindi. The petitioner himself had submitted his written defence statement, questions during cross examination and other communication with the Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority in English language only. He had cross examined all the PWs only in English. During the conduct of the departmental enquiry, the petitioner had not raised any objection relating to language in which disciplinary enquiry was conducted. 8. Moreover, it is also pointed out by the Disciplinary Authority that the petitioner after appointment in CISF, had undergone more than 11 months basic training at Madhya Pradesh State and the training was imparted in Hindi and English. The petitioner successfully completed the said training and his personal service records revealed that the department had issued various orders to him in service matters in English language only. It is also seen that though the petitioner studied upto 10th standard in Kannada medium, his second language was English and third language was Hindi. These are the factual findings rendered and not disproved by the petitioner in any manner. Hence, we are of the view that the preliminary objections raised by the petitioner with regard to the language in which the disciplinary proceedings was conducted, cannot be sustained, as we find that the petitioner was given due and adequate opportunity only in a language known to him and he has also taken part in the proceedings by giving his explanation to the charge memo as well as cross examining the PWs in English. 9. Insofar as the merit of the matter is concerned, it is seen that the petitioner was issued with a charge memo wherein the allegations made against him was that he had close link and had been maintaining unwarranted conduct with the suspected and dubious integrity person by name Ramesh, which had resulted in the arrest of the petitioner by the Police in respect of a criminal case for the offence of theft of plant property worth about Rs. 21,57,000/-. During the domestic enquiry, the documents/evidences from the BSNL authorities were marked through PW-3. 21,57,000/-. During the domestic enquiry, the documents/evidences from the BSNL authorities were marked through PW-3. From those materials, it is seen that the Divisional Engineer (IT, BSNL) has intimated the mobile details and addresses of seven mobile numbers including that of the petitioner. The call details of mobile number belonging to the said Ramesh and mobile numbers belonging to the petitioner were mentioned in the statements given by one Mr. Sankara Narayanan, BSNL Officer, before the Criminal Court. The call details revealed that the Ramesh made number of calls to the petitioner and the petitioner also made several calls to the said Ramesh. The Disciplinary Authority pointed out that even though the said accused person namely Ramesh in his statement has stated that he never met or seen the petitioner ever before the date of appearance in the departmental enquiry, he produced a copy of the statement given by one Sankara Narayanan, BSNL Officer, showing call details between the petitioner and the said Ramesh only. Therefore, the Disciplinary Authority pointed out that if the petitioner was not having any connection with the said Ramesh, there was no necessity for the said Ramesh to produce the said statement of the BSNL Officer, which admittedly contained the call details between the petitioner and the accused person. 10. We have also perused the enquiry report. PW-3, the Inspector of Police has deposed that one Sekar @ Panju Mittai Sekar was arrested on 31.09.2006 and during his confession he informed about the connivance of the petitioner and other CISF personnel and since the accused have mentioned about the connivance of CISF personnel in the major theft, investigation was held to gather any other evidence corroborating the confessions of accused Ramesh. He further deposed that during the investigation, he had collected the cell phone call details of main accused, Ramesh who was using cell phone No.9443050481 from BSNL authorities. He further stated that the above details proved that accused Ramesh had frequent telephone contacts, both incoming and outgoing call with a cell number 9486421022, owned by petitioner, especially during the date of commissioning of the thefts. It is not the case of the petitioner that the said Ramesh is his friend or relative. He further stated that the above details proved that accused Ramesh had frequent telephone contacts, both incoming and outgoing call with a cell number 9486421022, owned by petitioner, especially during the date of commissioning of the thefts. It is not the case of the petitioner that the said Ramesh is his friend or relative. Hence, the burden was heavily on the petitioner to show under what circumstances and for what purpose those calls were made to and from his mobile phones which he miserably failed to do. The said Ramesh also denied any relationship with the petitioner. Considering all these facts and circumstances and considering the gravity of the charge levelled against the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of dismissal from service, which has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority as well as by the Revisional Authority. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by relying on the judgment of the Criminal Court made in C.C. No. 162 of 2007, dated 15.10.2008, submitted that the petitioner and others were acquitted by the Criminal Court, as the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against them. Therefore, he submitted that the punishment of dismissal from service cannot be justified. 12. At this stage, it would be beneficial to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Inspector General of Police and Another v. S. Samuthiram AIR 2013 SC 14 : (2013) 1 SCC 598 , wherein, among several questions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the question, when the departmental enquiry has been concluded resulting in dismissal of the delinquent from service, whether the subsequent findings recorded by the Criminal Court acquitting the delinquent will have any effect on the departmental proceedings. The Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to the decision in the case of Southern Railway Officers’ Association v. Union of India AIR 2010 SC 124 : 2009-IV-LLJ-1 : (2009) 7 MLJ 928, wherein it was held that the acquittal in a criminal case by itself cannot be a ground for interfering with an order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and order of dismissal can be passed even if the delinquent officer had been acquitted of the criminal charge. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also referred to yet another decision in State Bank of Hyderabad v. P. Kata Rao AIR 2008 SC 2146 : (2008) 15 SCC 657 , and the decision in Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. M.G. Vittal Rao, (2012) 1 SCC 442 : 2012-I-LLJ-320 and held as follows:- “20. We are of the view that the mere acquittal of an employee by a criminal court has no impact on the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Department. The respondent, it may be noted, is a member of a disciplined force and non examination of two key witnesses before the criminal court that is Adiyodi and Peter, in our view, was a serious flaw in the conduct of the criminal case by the Prosecution............... ............ That being the factual situation, we are of the view that the respondent was not honourably acquitted by the criminal court, but only due to the fact that PW 1 and PW 2 turned hostile and other prosecution witnesses were not examined. 23. As we have already indicated, in the absence of any provision in the service rule for reinstatement, if an employee is honourably acquitted by a Criminal Court, no right is conferred on the employee to claim any benefit including reinstatement. Reason is that the standard of proof required for holding a person guilty by a criminal court and the enquiry conducted by way of disciplinary proceeding is entirely different. In a criminal case, the onus of establishing the guilt of the accused is on the prosecution and if it fails to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is assumed to be innocent. It is settled law that the strict burden of proof required to establish guilt in a criminal court is not required in a disciplinary proceedings and preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. There may be cases where a person is acquitted for technical reasons or the prosecution giving up other witnesses since few of the other witnesses turned hostile etc. In the case on hand the prosecution did not take steps to examine many of the crucial witnesses on the ground that the complainant and his wife turned hostile. The court, therefore, acquitted the accused giving the benefit of doubt. In the case on hand the prosecution did not take steps to examine many of the crucial witnesses on the ground that the complainant and his wife turned hostile. The court, therefore, acquitted the accused giving the benefit of doubt. We are not prepared to say in the instant case, the respondent was honourably acquitted by the criminal court and even if it is so, he is not entitled to claim reinstatement since the Tamil Nadu Service Rules do not provide so.” 13. It is a settled legal position that the departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings are entirely different in nature and operate in different fields as they have different objectives. In the instant case, no doubt, the Criminal Court has acquitted the petitioner and others. But a perusal of the said decision would show that there was no Hon’ble acquittal of the petitioner from the criminal case. On the other hand, the Criminal Court has only found that the prosecution has not proved the charge beyond the reasonable doubts because the prosecution had not examined any one of the CISF persons who were present during the occurrence of the crime. Needless to say that the proof required varies from criminal proceedings to departmental proceedings. Before the departmental enquiry, only the preponderance of probabilities are sufficient to hold that the charges are proved against the delinquent unlike proof beyond reasonable doubt required in Criminal Court. The Disciplinary Authority has specifically pointed out that though the petitioner denied of having made or received any call to or from Ramesh, he has not denied that the mobile numbers 9486421022 and 9486283451 do not belong to him. Therefore, the Disciplinary Authority found that the ownership of the said mobile numbers was not at all disputed and the same belong to the petitioner. Thus, he pointed out that the petitioner has failed to furnish the details to prove his innocence by clarifying as to whom he made all those calls from those mobiles and from whom he received calls/sms etc. It was also noted by the Disciplinary Authority that the petitioner has not given any explanation in this regard while submitting his reply to the enquiry report. Therefore, the Disciplinary Authority found that the petitioner had close link and had been maintaining unwarranted contact with the accused Ramesh, who was involved in the criminal case of theft of the plant property. Therefore, the Disciplinary Authority found that the petitioner had close link and had been maintaining unwarranted contact with the accused Ramesh, who was involved in the criminal case of theft of the plant property. The Disciplinary Authority has also pointed out that though mere arrest and remanding to the judicial custody cannot be construed as misconduct, the petitioner maintained close contacts with the main accused Ramesh and the said charge having been established by adequate documentary evidence and his arrest and remand into the judicial custody for an involvement of major theft need to be taken adversely against the petitioner. He further pointed out that after recording the statement of PW-4 during departmental enquiry, the petitioner was given enough opportunity to cross examine the PW-4, which he also availed. But he did not ask any question to him with regard to the plea that PW-4 had deposed before the Court that he did not give any statement to the department. The Disciplinary Authority also pointed out that the petitioner failed to produce any document in support of his plea during the departmental enquiry. 14. It is also seen that the petitioner proposed to examine six persons as his defence witnesses, however except two, others have failed to appear before the Enquiry Officer. Those, who appeared are Mr. S. Kuppusamy, ASI and the accused person Ramesh. Even though, the ASI S. Kuppusamy appeared before the Enquiry Officer as defence witness in presence of the petitioner on 30.12.2008, the petitioner did not examine him by stating that his defence version was not required. The Disciplinary Authority further pointed out that the Criminal case ended in acquittal was only on technical grounds and on the other hand there was adequate documentary evidence to show that the petitioner was having contact with main accused Ramesh by the call details provided by PW-3. After holding so, the Disciplinary Authority further pointed out at paragraph 7 of his order, which reads as follows:- “7......When the evidence adduced during the enquiry pin-pointedly indicated that he was keeping close contacts with the main accused Ramesh particularly during the period of occurrence of theft of conveyor belt, the charged official was duty bound to produce all details necessitating to make such calls with a person of ill repute to prove his innocence. But the charged official did not utter even a single word about the reason as to why he had made calls with the main accused Ramesh and also was receiving calls/SMS from Ramesh. Though the charged official denied of having made/received any calls to/from Ramesh, the charged official has not denied that mobile phone Nos. (2486421022 & 9486283451) do not belong to him. From this, it is clear that he has nothing to say about the ownership of mobile Nos. (9486421022 & 9486283451). Since the owner of the mobiles in question is undoubtedly the charged official, it was his prime duty to clarify as to whom he made all those calls from those mobiles and from whom he received calls/SMS and the necessity thereof. He did not furnish those details to prove his innocence except telling that he does not know about mobile No.9443050481 and the person named Ramesh. But, even while submitting reply to the Enquiry report, the charged official did not touch this particular point which is the pivotal of this charge. Thus, from the evidence on record, it is proved that the charged official had close link and had been maintaining unwarranted contact with the accused Ramesh. Regarding, the news articles appeared in various news papers about the theft of 679 meters and his involvement in the theft, he has mentioned in his defence that he did not know anything about the news items appeared in various news papers. On the other hand, the news items appeared in various news papers with photo of charged official involving him in the theft ultimately tarnished the image and reputation of the entire Force in the eyes of general public though he has been charged only for maintaining unwarranted close contacts with main accused Ramesh.” 15. The above narrated discussions of the Disciplinary Authority which have been rendered by considering the facts as well as the evidence let in before the domestic enquiry, would disclose that the charge levelled against the petitioner has been clearly proved and the said charge being serious in nature, the Disciplinary Authority has rightly imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. 16. 16. These factual findings rendered by the Disciplinary Authority, which has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority as well as by the Revisional Authority, having been made based on the evidence let in during the domestic enquiry cannot be interfered with while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the absence any contra materials and also in the absence of any perversity in the findings recorded by the authorities. Considering all the above facts, we are not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the respondents. While coming to the proportionality of the punishment, we feel that the Disciplinary Authority has rightly imposed the punishment of dismissal from service by taking note of seriousness of the charge. The petitioner who was in the disciplined force cannot expect any lesser punishment considering the gravity of the charge levelled and proved against him. 17. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Petition dismissed.