JUDGMENT 1. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. The petitioner's fair price shop licence was cancelled against which the petitioner preferred an appeal which was also dismissed by the Commissioner. The said order has become final as the petitioner did not challenge the order before the High Court. 2. Based on the irregularities committed by the petitioner, an FIR was also lodged under Section 3 /7 of the Essential Commodities Act in which after due investigation a final report was filed which was accepted by the Magistrate and the case was closed. Based on the closure of the case, the petitioner moved an application before the SDM for restoration of his licence. This application was rejected against which the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. The contention of the petitioner is, that his licence was cancelled on the basis of an FIR being lodged and, in support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision in Smt. Raj Kumari v. State of U.P. and others, 2011 (3) ADJ 638 (DB) in which a Division Bench of this Court has held that a fair price shop licence cannot be cancelled on the mere filing of an FIR. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the opinion that the decision cited by the petitioner is not applicable inasmuch as the petitioner's licence was not cancelled on the mere filing of the FIR but was cancelled after holding a due inquiry and putting the petitioner to notice of the charges levelled against him. The mere fact that the final report has been submitted pursuant to an FIR does not mean that the petitioner has been absolved of all the irregularities that was committed and found to be correct in the inquiry initiated against him. Proceedings under a criminal law is totally different and distinct from a domestic inquiry proceedings. In criminal proceedings, a finding of guilt has to be proved to the hilt beyond a reasonable doubt whereas, in domestic inquiry proceedings on the basis of probability, a finding of guilt can be arrived and action can be taken. 5. Proceedings under a criminal law is totally different and distinct from a domestic inquiry proceedings. In criminal proceedings, a finding of guilt has to be proved to the hilt beyond a reasonable doubt whereas, in domestic inquiry proceedings on the basis of probability, a finding of guilt can be arrived and action can be taken. 5. In the light of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that since the final report has been given in a criminal investigation, his licence should be restored. For the reasons stated aforesaid, we do not find any merit in this writ petition and is accordingly dismissed.