JUDGMENT 1. Petitioners seek quash of proceedings in C.C.No.187/2011 pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate II, Poonamallee. 2. Petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in such case. A final report came to be filed pursuant to investigation in Crime No.65 of 2008 on the file of the first respondent for offences under Sections 409 and 420 IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the first petitioner was functioning as the Post Master at the Sub-Post Office, Poonamallee, while the second petitioner was a Clerk therein. The third accused was an outsider temporarily appointed as a Peon. Between 10.06.2006 and 30.11.2006, a sum of Rs.2,31,724/-received towards recurring deposit and Savings Bank Accounts of depositors had been misappropriated. The third accused was said to have acted with the aid of the accused/petitioners 1 and 2. Requisite entries in the Post Office records towards reflecting receipt of such deposits were not made. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that though in connected departmental enquiries both petitioners suffered reduction in scale of pay with consequential effect of postponing increments in future, it specifically was found that their wrong doing was in delegating their functions to an unauthorised person as a consequence of which the wrong doing came to be. Learned counsel contends that in such circumstance, the petitioners should not be required to undergo the rigour of trial. 5. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submissions. 6. The orders of the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Tamabram Division, Tambaram, passed pursuant to Office Memos dated 23.10.2009 and 15.10.2009 confirms the position informed by learned counsel for petitioners. In P.S.Rajya v. State of Bihar (1996) 9 Supreme Court Cases 1, the Supreme Court, taking note of the position that the standard of proof required to establish guilt in a criminal case is far higher than the proof required to establish guilt in departmental proceedings and the factual position in such case that the charge both in departmental and criminal proceedings was one and the same, found it unnecessary for the accused therein to be proceeded against in criminal proceedings when identical charges could not be established in the departmental proceedings. Though the Supreme Court has gone on to quash proceedings on the peculiar facts of the case before it, this Court is of the view that the rationale of the decision applies on all fours in the instant case. Though the Supreme Court has gone on to quash proceedings on the peculiar facts of the case before it, this Court is of the view that the rationale of the decision applies on all fours in the instant case. In stating so, this Court is conscious that in State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Ajay Kumar Tyagi [ 2012 (9) SCC 685 ], the Supreme Court has clarified the decision in P.S.Rajya's case informing that such decision does not lay down that exoneration in disciplinary proceedings would ipso facto terminate criminal proceedings, as a criminal case is to be decided on the basis of evidence adduced therein and cannot be rejected on the basis of evidence in departmental proceedings or report of enquiry officer. In the instant case, the depositors can inform no more than that monies deposited by them were not credited to their accounts. Neither they nor any departmental witnesses exactly can inform the manner in which the wrong doing took place. The charge sheet in the case places reliance on the enquiry report of the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices. In the departmental enquiry, it has been found that it is the negligence of these petitioners in allowing the third accused, an outsider (temporary peon), access to the postal records that had facilitated the wrong doing. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioners should not be required to suffer the rigour of trial in a case which at best only can render a finding of negligence on the part of these petitioners. Negligence, except where informed to be an offence, is no offence. 7. This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.187 of 2011 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate II, Poonamallee, stand quashed insofar the petitioners herein are concerned. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.