JUDGMENT Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J. 1. Challenge has been laid in the present writ petition to an order dated 6th of March, 1997 passed by respondent No. 3, removing the petitioner from services as also the appellate order dated 6.4.1998, affirming it. 2. Petitioner claims to have been appointed as a Driver in the respondents-Corporation in 1989. He was assigned duty to drive the bus of the respondents-Corporation from Delhi to Budaun. On the relevant date i.e. 28th of March, 1992 while discharging his duties, petitioner was going to Budaun from Delhi by Bus No. U.G.L.609, when he met with an accident at about 8.30 p.m. near Uddyani By-pass. The bus hit a bullock-cart going on the left road side from behind, which resulted in injury being caused to the Conductor of the bus, who subsequently died. Petitioner also sustained minor injuries. A first information report was lodged by the Junior Centre In-charge of the Budaun Depot. of respondents-Corporation, in which a charge sheet was submitted on 28th of March, 1992. The first information report apart from narrating the incident also mentioned that accidental examination was performed by the doctors and that he was not hospitalized, yet no first information report was lodged by the driver. A trial proceeded pursuant to the charge sheet, in which all the three prosecution witnesses turned hostile. In such circumstances, petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case instituted under sections 279, 337, 338, 427 and 304-A IPC in case crime No. 128 of 1992. 3. In respect of the aforesaid incident, departmental proceedings were also initiated against the petitioner with issuance of a charge sheet to the petitioner. After narrating the incident, it was alleged that petitioner had not lodged any first information report, although he had sustained minor injuries and in case, the lights of the bus were not working, then petitioner ought to have got the defects rectified before proceedings further. Charge of negligent driving amounting to misconduct was levelled against the petitioner. Petitioner submitted his reply, in which it was stated that the lights of the bus were in order and it was only when the bus was cornered on the left side to give pass to speeding truck that it landed in a pit and suddenly the lights went off and despite petitioner's attempt he could not stop the vehicle resulting in the accident. Oral and documentary evidence were adduced in the matter. The enquiry officer returned a finding that petitioner's defence was not liable to be accepted as it was admitted by the petitioner that lights of the bus were in working order and his defence that he was trying to save the passengers by taking the vehicle on the left side, as a result of which, the bus landed in a pit and the lights suddenly went off, was not found credible enough to be accepted. The charges as levelled in the enquiry proceedings was found proved. A show cause notice was thereafter issued to the petitioner and on the basis of consideration of petitioner's reply, an order of removal from service was passed against the petitioner on 6th of March, 1997, which has been affirmed in appeal. 4. Challenging the orders aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that precisely on the same set of charges, criminal and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and once the petitioner had been acquitted in the criminal case, it was not open for the authorities to have imposed the punishment of dismissal as the finding of negligent driving could not be held to be proved on the basis of materials produced. 5. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs Bharat Gold Mines Ltd and others; [1999)2 UPLBEC 1280], Managing Director State Bank of Hyderabad and P. Kata Rao reported in AIR (SC) 2008-0-2146 and G.M. Tank vs State of Gujarat and others; (2006) 5 SCC 446 . 6. Shri S.K. Mishra appearing for the respondents on the contrary submits that the standard of proof required to be established in a criminal trial vis-a-vis disciplinary proceedings are distinct and the acquittal of petitioner in criminal case would not be sufficient to hold that the charges were not proved in disciplinary proceedings. It has also been submitted that admittedly an accident had happened, in which the Conductor had died and petitioner had also sustained serious injuries. It has also been submitted that admittedly an accident had happened, in which the Conductor had died and petitioner had also sustained serious injuries. As per his own showing, the explanation of the petitioner that the lights went off is not worthy of reliance as the petitioner was driving a vehicle during night and it is admitted to the petitioner that lights were in working order and it was only when he turned the vehicle on the left side that the lights went off. It is submitted that on the preponderance of probability, which is the yardstick to be applied in a disciplinary proceedings, the finding of guilt returned against the petitioner cannot be said to be entirely baseless, so as to warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials available on record. 8. It is not in dispute that an accident had happened with the bus driven by the petitioner while petitioner was taking the vehicle from Delhi to Budaun. It is also not in dispute that the bus was being driven in night and according to the petitioner's own admission, the lights were in working order. It is also not the petitioner's case that any defect had occurred in the breaking system. The explanation submitted by the petitioner that he had taken the vehicle on the left road side so as to allow the speeding truck to over take from behind and that the vehicle suddenly landed in a pit resulting in lights of the bus going off has been disbelieved by the employers in the factual scenario noticed above. Admittedly, an accident has been caused on account of petitioner hitting a bullock-cart from behind. The conclusion drawn by the enquiry officer that it was on account of petitioner's negligence that the accident had been caused cannot be said to be without any basis, once it is tested on the touch-stone of preponderance of probability. The finding returned by the enquiry officer, which is the basis of passing the order of punishment, is based upon materials available on record and no perversity could be shown. This Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction would not act as an appellate authority and if it is shown that material to return a finding did exist on record, no interference in the writ petition would be required. This Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction would not act as an appellate authority and if it is shown that material to return a finding did exist on record, no interference in the writ petition would be required. It has otherwise not been shown by the petitioner that he had been denied any opportunity of defending him in the disciplinary proceedings and even before this Court, no complaint with regard to denial of opportunity has been raised. 9. So far as the petitioner's plea of reinstatement on account of his acquittal in criminal case is concerned, it is to be noticed that the yardsticks to return a finding of guilt in disciplinary proceedings vis-a-vis criminal proceedings are entirely distinct inasmuch as while in disciplinary proceedings, it is the preponderance of probability, which has to be looked into, while in criminal proceedings the guilt has to be established beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs Bharat Gold MInes Ltd and others; was delivered in some what different factual scenario, as has been noticed in Para-12 of the judgment, which is reproduced hereinafter : - "This question, as observed earlier, is of a perennial nature and has arisen more often than not in spite of the judicial pronouncements, specially by this Court, having settled the question and provided the answer. Still, the problem is raised either by the employer or by the employee in one or the other form. In the instant case, the order of dismissal had already been passed before the decision of the criminal case which ultimately resulted in the acquittal of the appellant. Whether the acquittal coupled with other circumstances, specially ex-parte proceedings, of the case, will have the effect of vitiating the departmental proceedings or the order of dismissal passed against the appellant, is the question which is to be considered in this appeal." 10. After considering ratio of law laid down in series of judgments following findings were returned in Para 34: - "There is yet another reason for discarding the whole of the case of the respondents. After considering ratio of law laid down in series of judgments following findings were returned in Para 34: - "There is yet another reason for discarding the whole of the case of the respondents. As pointed out earlier, the criminal case as also the departmental proceedings were based on identical set of facts, namely, 'the raid conducted at the appellant's residence and recovery of incriminating articles therefrom.' The findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, a copy of which has been placed before us, indicate that the charges framed against the appellant were sought to be proved by Police Officers and Panch witnesses, who had raided the house of the appellant and had effected recovery. They were the only witnesses examined by the Inquiry Officer and the Inquiry Officer, relying upon their statements, came to the conclusion that the charges were established against the appellant. The same witnesses were examined in the criminal case but the court, on a consideration of the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that no search was conducted nor was any recovery made from the residence of the appellant. The whole case of the prosecution was thrown out and the appellant was acquitted. In this situation, therefore, where the appellant is acquitted by a judicial pronouncement with the finding that the "raid and recovery" at the residence of the appellant were not proved, it would be unjust, unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded at the ex- parte departmental proceedings, to stand." 11. In case, the facts of the present case are examined in the context of the judgment and ratio laid down in Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs Bharat Gold Mines Ltd and others (supra), it would be relevant to note that Hon'ble the Apex Court was dealing with the case, in which the basis of disciplinary action was the raid conducted at appellant residence and recovery of incriminating articles. In the criminal trial, it was established that the raid itself was not established, and therefore, the basis of disciplinary proceedings was held to be without any evidence or material. It was also noticed that the disciplinary enquiry conducted against the petitioner were ex-parte. 12. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the enquiry has been conducted after due opportunity to the petitioner. It was also noticed that the disciplinary enquiry conducted against the petitioner were ex-parte. 12. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the enquiry has been conducted after due opportunity to the petitioner. The factum of accident being caused by the vehicle driven by petitioner resulting in death of the Conductor is not in dispute. Even, the acquittal in criminal proceedings is on account of the prosecution witnesses turning hostile. In my opinion, the judgment delivered in Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs Bharat Gold Mines Ltd and others (supra), has no applicability in the facts of the present case. The other judgments relied upon by the learned counsel substantially relies upon the judgment in Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs Bharat Gold Mines Ltd and others (supra), and for the reasons indicated above do not have any applicability in the facts of the present case. No other ground has been pressed. 13. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.