ORDER : The present appeal arises from order dated 06.02.2014 allowing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6501/1998 directing reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service but denying pecuniary benefit for the intervening period along with notional reassessment of salary. 2. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the respondent was assigned duty during the Panchayat elections. He was negligent in handling his official firearm and despite being told not to load it while sitting, proceeded to do so leading to accidental firing which injured three persons. 3. There was no procedural illegality or irregularity in the conduct of the departmental proceedings. The Appellate Authority also declined to interfere with the order of dismissal. The learned Single Judge erred in directing reinstatement only on the ground that in the criminal prosecution instituted under Section 308 IPC for injury caused to three persons because of his conduct, the charge could not be proved. The standard of proof required in a departmental proceeding and in a criminal trial are entirely different and purpose of the two are also different. While departmental proceedings are conducted to enforce discipline in service and punishment can be based on preponderance of probabilities, in a criminal trial conviction and imprisonment may follow for a penal offence and the standard of proof is beyond all reasonable doubts. In the present case more than one prosecution witness in the departmental proceeding had deposed that the respondent despite being told not to load his weapon insisted on doing so when it accidentally fired. If a finding of negligence had been recorded and there was even an iota of evidence with regard to the same, the Learned Single Judge ought not to have directed reinstatement or interfered with the punishment. 4. Counsel for the respondent submitted that he was in service for the last 17 years without any blemish as a Constable. Even while denying the allegations, even if it is taken into consideration, the barrel of the gun was towards the ground when it fired accidently. The bullet hit the ground ricocheted off the stones on the ground and caused accidental injuries. It did not constitute any offence under Section 308 IPC but at best may have been a negligent conduct. In the criminal trial two of the witnesses denied to support the prosecution case. The bullet hit the ground ricocheted off the stones on the ground and caused accidental injuries. It did not constitute any offence under Section 308 IPC but at best may have been a negligent conduct. In the criminal trial two of the witnesses denied to support the prosecution case. If the denial was in a Court of law, any statement by those witnesses during the departmental proceedings loose their significance. The learned Single Judge therefore did not commit any error by directing reinstatement because of acquittal in the criminal case. 5. The last submission in the alternative was that in any event considering the nature of allegations the punishment of dismissal was excessive and grossly disproportionate to the allegations of negligence considering the past unblemished services. Reliance was placed on AIR 2016 SC 1464 (Commissioner of Police v. Sat Narayan Kaushik). 6. We have considered the submissions of the parties. 7. The extent of judicial review permissible of an order of punishment passed in a department proceeding need no detailed discussion in view of the law well settled and reference may only be made to (1995) 6 SCC 749 (B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India) that it is confined to errors in the decision making process and not the merits of the decision itself. There are no allegations of any procedural impropriety in the conduct of the departmental proceedings. 8. The scope and purpose of a departmental proceeding and a criminal prosecution, even if the charge be the same are entirely different. While departmental proceeding is conducted to enforce discipline in service, a criminal prosecution has nothing to do with discipline in service but may result in conviction and sentence under the penal law. The fact that the respondent may have been acquitted in the criminal trial will not automatically lead to an irresistible conclusion under all circumstances for reinstatement per se. 9. While the standard of proof in a departmental proceeding is based on preponderance of probabilities, that in a criminal prosecution is proof beyond reasonable doubt. Even if there is an iota of evidence in the departmental proceedings punishment can be sustained. PW2 and PW3 on duty with the respondent, as departmental witnesses in the departmental proceedings deposed that the respondent was told not to load his gun but insisted on doing so leading to accidental firing. Even if there is an iota of evidence in the departmental proceedings punishment can be sustained. PW2 and PW3 on duty with the respondent, as departmental witnesses in the departmental proceedings deposed that the respondent was told not to load his gun but insisted on doing so leading to accidental firing. The fact that these two official witnesses may have gone hostile in the criminal trial, cannot inure to the benefit of the respondent insofar as their evidence in the departmental proceeding is concerned and whom he cross examined also. The appellants are expected to take notice of the conduct of the two witnesses in the criminal trial leading to acquittal of the respondent. 10. The allegations are that while on duty during the panchayat elections while sitting after respondent loaded his firearm and it fired accidently because the safety catch was not locked but with the barrel pointed towards the ground. The single shot hit the ground ricocheted off injuring three persons. Had the barrel been straight or at body level or the allegations would have been of reckless firing in a trigger happy manner, issues would have been entirely different. Negligence cannot be denied. But it cannot be held to be negligence bordering on recklessness aware of the consequences with total unconcern for the same. Every negligence per se may not warrant the extreme penalty of dismissal from service and much will depend on the nature of the negligence. The higher the level of negligence the greater the culpability. The mitigating factor in favour of the respondent is that barrel was pointing towards the ground. Only one accidental shot was fired. He had an unblemished service of 17 longs years. There can be no two opinions that he is answerable for his conduct. The question is that if the answerability extends to the extreme punishment of dismissal or whether a lesser punishment will suffice. 11. The punishment is based on the various possibilities of what may have happened but which did not happen. The respondent has suffered since 31.03.1997. 12. In (2010) 2 SCC 236 (State of U.P. v. Ram Daras Yadav) the respondent was a constable on duty at the University. While on duty he pointed a gun towards a fellow constable on duty. The dismissal ordered was set aside as excessive. In Satya Narain Kaushik (supra) it was observed :- "19. The respondent has suffered since 31.03.1997. 12. In (2010) 2 SCC 236 (State of U.P. v. Ram Daras Yadav) the respondent was a constable on duty at the University. While on duty he pointed a gun towards a fellow constable on duty. The dismissal ordered was set aside as excessive. In Satya Narain Kaushik (supra) it was observed :- "19. Coming to the first two submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the view that High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, has power to interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by the appointing authority in an appropriate case provided the High Court has taken into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case such as nature of charges levelled against the employee, its gravity, seriousness, whether proved and, if so, to what extent, entire service record, work done in the past, remaining tenure of the delinquent left etc. In other words, it is necessary for the High Court to take these factors into consideration before interfering in the quantum of the punishment." 13. Even though the acquittal in the criminal case for reasons discussed will not by itself vitiate the order of punishment but in the facts and circumstances of the present case the punishment of dismissal is held to be grossly excessive and disproportionate to the act of negligence committed by the respondent. The culpability of the negligence has been assessed on presumptions without consideration of mitigating factors. The solitary act of the respondent has not been considered in its proper perspective alongwith his unblemished service record for 17 long years. 14. The order under appeal and the order of dismissal are held to be unsustainable and are set aside. This shall not result in immediate reinstatement. The matter is remanded to the Disciplinary Authority for passing fresh appropriate orders of punishment commensurate to the charge after consideration of all relevant factors preferably within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. 15. The appeal is partly allowed.