ORDER : H.G. Ramesh, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the official communication dated 15.06.2010 (Annexure-H) issued to him by respondent No.3 Chief Vigilance Officer (Vigilance Cell), Health and Family Welfare Directorate, Bangalore, in response to the petitioner’s letter dated 10.06.2010. The aforesaid impugned communication states that the departmental inquiry initiated against the petitioner will continue as per the articles of charge already issued to him. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that a departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner under Rule 11 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 as per the notice dated 28.01.2005 (Annexure-A) issued by respondent no.2 on the basis of the material collected by the COD Police during the investigation in respect of the six criminal cases referred to in the annexure to the aforesaid notice. He submitted that the charge against the petitioner is that he had issued fake medical certificates facilitating to lodge fradulent claims before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals for award of compensation. He further submitted that the aforesaid criminal prosecutions initiated against the petitioner and others have been quashed by this Court as against the petitioner as per orders dated 11.08.2008 produced as Annexures C1 to C5, and hence, continuation of the departmental inquiry against the petitioner is not justified. In support of his contention, he relied on a two Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines LTD. [ (1999)3 SCC 679 ]. 3. I am unable to accept the contention in view of the law laid down by a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Ajit Kumar Nag v. General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. ( (2005)7 SCC 764 ). It is relevant to refer to the following observations made therein: “11. As far as acquittal of the appellant by a criminal court is concerned, in our opinion, the said order does not preclude the Corporation from taking an action if it is otherwise permissible. In our judgment, the law is fairly well settled. Acquittal by a criminal court would not debar an employer from exercising power in accordance with the Rules and Regulations in force. The two proceedings, criminal and departmental, are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. In our judgment, the law is fairly well settled. Acquittal by a criminal court would not debar an employer from exercising power in accordance with the Rules and Regulations in force. The two proceedings, criminal and departmental, are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on the offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with the service rules. In a criminal trial, incriminating statement made by the accused in certain circumstances or before certain officers is totally inadmissible in evidence. Such strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental proceedings. The degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency. The rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused “beyond reasonable doubt”, he cannot be convicted by a court of law. In a departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of “preponderance of probability”. Acquittal of the appellant by a Judicial Magistrate, therefore, does not ipsofacto absolve him from the liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Corporation. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the contention of the appellant that since he was acquitted by a criminal court, the impugned order dismissing him from service deserves to be quashed and set aside.” (Underlining supplied) 4. In the three Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Ajit Kumar Nag extracted above, it is stated that termination of proceedings in a criminal case against an employee does not ipsofacto absolve him from the liability arising under the disciplinary jurisdiction as per service rules. It is also stated therein, that the two proceedings, criminal and departmental, are entirely different and they operate in different fields and have different objectives. Hence, I find no illegality in continuation of the inquiry against the petitioner notwithstanding quashing of the criminal proceedings against him. The contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is, therefore, rejected. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.