JUDGMENT : Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J. From the order-sheet, it appears that on 31.01.2014, when the matter was called for hearing, there was no representation on the behalf of the petitioner. The matter was adjourned. On 14.02.2014, when the matter was taken up again, the petitioner remained unrepresented. This Court had no option than to dismiss the writ application for default. 2. The writ application was subsequently restored to its original file by an order dated 25.09.2014 passed in M.J.C. No. 3680 of 2014. Today, again, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner on call. This Court in such circumstance, is compelled to consider the merits of this case on the basis of the pleadings available on record. 3. This application has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 28.09.1994 issued vide Special Branch Order No. 2310/1994 whereby punishment of compulsory retirement has been imposed upon the petitioner with effect from 01.10.1994. 4. From the records it appears that following charge was framed against the petitioner:- ^^tc ;s eq[;ky; esa inLFkkfir Fks rks fnukad 30-06-1989 ds jkf= esa ljdkjh fjokYoj ua0 7292 ls Qk;j dj ,d Jh f'ko'kadj 'kekZ] xzke&Hkh[kkpd] Fkkuk&xnZuhckx ¼iVuk½ dks gR;k dj fn;s] ftldk laca/k esa buds fo:) xnZuhckx Fkkuk dkaM la0 359 fnukad 30-06-1989 /kkjk 302 Hkk0n0fo0 ntZ dh x;h rFkk ;s fxjrkj dj tsy Hkst fn;s x;sA ?kVuk LFky ij ;s viuk nks"k Lohdkj fd;s FksA** 5. An Enquiry Officer was appointed, who after holding an enquiry held the charge to have been proved. A second show-cause notice was given to the petitioner vide Memo No. 5184 dated 28.07.1993. 6. The Disciplinary Authority after agreeing with the findings rerecorded by the Enquiry Officer imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner. The petitioner had preferred an appeal which also was dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Special Branch, Bihar Police, Patna vide order dated 10.05.1995. The order of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority is under challenge. 7. It appears that a criminal case was also instituted for the same allegation. It is the petitioner’s plea that he was exonerated in the criminal case and, therefore, no punishment could have been imposed in the departmental proceeding in view of the findings recorded by the trial Court. 8. 7. It appears that a criminal case was also instituted for the same allegation. It is the petitioner’s plea that he was exonerated in the criminal case and, therefore, no punishment could have been imposed in the departmental proceeding in view of the findings recorded by the trial Court. 8. From the pleadings in the writ application as well as the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent-State of Bihar and the documents annexed therewith, I find that there is no procedural irregularity in course of the departmental proceeding inasmuch as the petitioner was given ample opportunity to participate and make his defence against the charge which he appears to have availed. 9. On the basis of material available before the Enquiry Officer, he reached to a conclusion that the charges against the petitioner stood proved. The findings of the Enquiry Officer, in my opinion, cannot be said to be perverse as such findings are based on some materials/evidence on record. The petitioner cannot take plea that since he was exonerated in criminal case, no action could have been taken in the departmental proceeding. The proceedings are entirely different as the standard of proof in the departmental proceeding is entirely different from that of the criminal case. In a departmental proceeding a charge is to be proved is required to be proved on the basis of preponderance of possibilities and some standard of strict proof is required in a criminal trail, is not required in a disciplinary proceeding. 10. I do not find any merit in this application. This application is dismissed with a cost of rupees five thousand to be deposited in the account of Bihar State Legal Services Authority, Patna. The cost is being imposed because of repeated non-appearance of learned counsel for the petitioner.