JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for issuance of a writ/direction in the nature of mandamus for quashing/setting aside the order dated 11.07.1987 (Annexure-8), passed by the respondents pertaining to dismissal from services and for direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in his original post with all consequential benefits including back wages/emoluments with interest @ 12 per cent since the date of dismissal. 2. The facts, as disclosed in the writ application, in a nutshell, is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Clerk-cum-Cashier in the year 1980 in the State Bank of India. The petitioner continued to discharge his duties to the utmost satisfaction of his authority without any blemish. While continuing, as such, vide letter dated 24.05.1984 show cause was issued to the petitioner in respect of Saving Bank Account No. 22/12982 in the name of Shri Pradeep Kumar on the allegation that some irregularity has been made in the payment register by not entering the payment of Rs.1,600/- on the captioned account, which was passed vide Scroll No. B-10 and the further allegation is that the said transaction has been entered and initialed in the concerned passbook and posted in ledger by the petitioner without any authority or justification whatsoever. In pursuance to the said show-cause, the petitioner submitted his reply explaining his position by denying all the charges levelled against him. Thereafter, the petitioner was placed under suspension and the departmental enquiry was initiated and a memo of charge was issued against him. During the enquiry, witnesses were examined on behalf of the Respondent-Bank and the star witness, namely, Malay Bose, Saving Bank Account In-charge was not summoned during enquiry and the enquiry officer submitted his report finding the petitioner guilty. It has further been submitted in the writ application that along with departmental proceeding, F.I.R. was also lodged under Sections 420, 455, 468 and 471 of the I.P.C. on the basis of the complaint lodged by the Branch Manager. In the criminal case also, charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner. It is further averred in the writ application that Mr. Malay Bose, the key witness, who was not examined in the departmental enquiry, was examined in the criminal trial, who categorically denied the charges against the petitioner. In the criminal case also, charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner. It is further averred in the writ application that Mr. Malay Bose, the key witness, who was not examined in the departmental enquiry, was examined in the criminal trial, who categorically denied the charges against the petitioner. On the basis of the same set of witnesses and on the same charge, the petitioner has been found guilty in the departmental enquiry and he was dismissed from services, though, on the same set of charges, the petitioner has been acquitted by the learned trial court. Soon after acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case, the petitioner submitted representation for allowing him to join the service but the petitioner has been informed by the Departmental Disciplinary Authority vide a communication that the departmental proceeding and the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority will not be affected in any way by the judgment pronounced in the criminal case, as is evident from Annexure-14 to the writ application. Left with no other efficacious, alternative and speedy remedy, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances. 3. Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent-Bank repelling the contentions made in the writ application. In the counter affidavit, it has been inter alia, submitted that any acquittal in criminal case on the ground of lack of evidence or otherwise also will have no effect in the departmental proceeding, since the charges are well-proved against the petitioner and more so in the departmental proceeding, the charges were more and different. Criminal case was lodged against charge no. 1 with regard to account of Pradeep Kumar but in the departmental proceeding, the charge were different and more, so it is a well settled principle of law that acquittal in criminal case has no effect in the departmental case. In the criminal case charges are proved by the standard of proof beyond the reasonable doubt while in the departmental proceedings, the standard of proof for providing the charge is preponderance of probabilities. 4. Heard Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent-Bank and perused the records. 5. Mr. In the criminal case charges are proved by the standard of proof beyond the reasonable doubt while in the departmental proceedings, the standard of proof for providing the charge is preponderance of probabilities. 4. Heard Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent-Bank and perused the records. 5. Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner during course of arguments has submitted with vehemence that by non-examining of the material witnesses i.e. in-charge of the Saving Bank accounts, Mr. Malay Bose has vitiated the proceeding apart from violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel further submits that the specimen signature of the petitioner was not sent for verification of its authenticity in the Central Forensic Laboratory, which also materially affected the final outcome of departmental proceedings. Learned counsel further submits that on the basis of the same set of charges, the petitioner has been found guilty in the departmental proceedings, whereas, he has been acquitted in the criminal proceedings by the learned trial court. During course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court regarding the procedure for taking disciplinary action and the relevant provisions relating to the effect of acquittal in a criminal case vis-a-vis reinstatement in service. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank apart from justifying the impugned order of dismissal from service, has assiduously submitted that the charges against the petitioner were found proved in the departmental proceeding and the irregularity committed by the petitioner in not entering the payment of Rs.1,600/- on the captioned account in the payment register, which was passed vide Scroll No. B-10 and that the said transaction has been entered and initialed in the concerned passbook and posted in ledger by the petitioner without any authority or justification whatsoever has been proved to be prejudicial to the interest of the Bank. Learned counsel for the Respondent-Bank has further referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Deputy Inspector General of Police and Another v. S. Samuthiram reported in (2013) 1 SCC 598 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has been, inter alia, pleased to hold as under :- “24. The meaning of the expression “honourable acquittal” came up for consideration before this Court in RBI v. Bhopal Singh Panchal. The meaning of the expression “honourable acquittal” came up for consideration before this Court in RBI v. Bhopal Singh Panchal. In that case, this Court has considered the impact of Regulation 46(4) dealing with honourable acquittal by a criminal court on the disciplinary proceedings. In that context, this Court held that the mere acquittal does not entitle an employee to reinstatement in service, the acquittal, it was held, has to be honourable. The expressions “honourable acquittal”, “acquitted of blame”, “fully exonerated” are unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code, which are coined by judicial pronouncements. It is difficult to define precisely what is meant by the expression “honourably acquitted”. When the accused is acquitted after full consideration of prosecution evidence and that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted. 25. In R.P. Kapur v. Union of India it was held that even in the case of acquittal, departmental proceedings may follow where the acquittal is other than honourable. In State of Assam v. Raghava Rajgopalachari this Court quoted with approval the views expressed by Lord Williams, J. in Robert Stuart Wauchope v. Emperor which is as follows: (Raghava case, SLR p. 47, para 8) “8. … ‘The expression “honourably acquitted” is one which is unknown to courts of justice. Apparently it is a form of order used in courts martial and other extrajudicial tribunals. We said in our judgment that we accepted the explanation given by the appellant, believed it to be true and considered that it ought to have been accepted by the government authorities and by the Magistrate. Further, we decided that the appellant had not misappropriated the monies referred to in the charge. It is thus clear that the effect of our judgment was that the appellant was acquitted as fully and completely as it was possible for him to be acquitted. Presumably, this is equivalent to what government authorities term “honourably acquitted”.’” (Robert Stuart case, ILR pp. 188-89) 26. As we have already indicated, in the absence of any provision in the service rules for reinstatement, if an employee is honourably acquitted by a criminal court, no right is conferred on the employee to claim any benefit including reinstatement. Presumably, this is equivalent to what government authorities term “honourably acquitted”.’” (Robert Stuart case, ILR pp. 188-89) 26. As we have already indicated, in the absence of any provision in the service rules for reinstatement, if an employee is honourably acquitted by a criminal court, no right is conferred on the employee to claim any benefit including reinstatement. Reason is that the standard of proof required for holding a person guilty by a criminal court and the enquiry conducted by way of disciplinary proceeding is entirely different. In a criminal case, the onus of establishing the guilt of the accused is on the prosecution and if it fails to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is assumed to be innocent. It is settled law that the strict burden of proof required to establish guilt in a criminal court is not required in a disciplinary proceedings and preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. There may be cases where a person is acquitted for technical reasons or the prosecution giving up other witnesses since few of the other witnesses turned hostile, etc. In the case on hand the prosecution did not take steps to examine many of the crucial witnesses on the ground that the complainant and his wife turned hostile. The court, therefore, acquitted the accused giving the benefit of doubt. We are not prepared to say that in the instant case, the respondent was honourably acquitted by the criminal court and even if it is so, he is not entitled to claim reinstatement since the Tamil Nadu Service Rules do not provide so. 27. We have also come across cases where the service rules provide that on registration of a criminal case, an employee can be kept under suspension and on acquittal by the criminal court, he be reinstated. In such cases, the reinstatement is automatic. There may be cases where the service rules provide that in spite of domestic enquiry, if the criminal court acquits an employee honourably, he could be reinstated. In other words, the issue whether an employee has to be reinstated in service or not depends upon the question whether the service rules contain any such provision for reinstatement and not as a matter of right. Such provisions are absent in the Tamil Nadu Service Rules. 28. In other words, the issue whether an employee has to be reinstated in service or not depends upon the question whether the service rules contain any such provision for reinstatement and not as a matter of right. Such provisions are absent in the Tamil Nadu Service Rules. 28. In view of the abovementioned circumstances, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in setting aside the punishment imposed in the departmental proceedings as against the respondent, in its limited jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” Learned counsel for the Respondent-Bank has also referred to the decisions of this Court in the case of Shyam Nandan Prasad-versus-The State Bank of India and others passed in L.P.A. No. 147 of 2015, wherein, the Division Bench by referring to various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to refuse to interfere in the orders of dismissal and confirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties at length and having given my anxious consideration to the issues involved in the instant writ application, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any legally tenable ground to warrant any interference in the impugned order of punishment due to the following factual and legal aspects :- (i) In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner was working as a Clerk-cum-Cashier in the State Bank of India and his duty was to protect the interest of the Bank but due to irregularity committed by the petitioner in not entering the captioned amount, though the said amount was passed through scroll, the petitioner has been placed under suspension and a departmental enquiry was initiated against him and he was found guilty in the enquiry by the disciplinary authority and therefore, the petitioner was inflicted with punishment of dismissal from service. (ii) Simultaneously, an F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner under Sections 420, 455, 468 and 471 of the I.P.C. and the petitioner was acquitted by the learned trial judge but it appears from the charges in both the cases that there is a vast difference in the departmental proceeding and also in the criminal case. (ii) Simultaneously, an F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner under Sections 420, 455, 468 and 471 of the I.P.C. and the petitioner was acquitted by the learned trial judge but it appears from the charges in both the cases that there is a vast difference in the departmental proceeding and also in the criminal case. Therefore, looking to the nature of charges levelled against the petitioner and conclusion arrived at by the enquiry officer on the basis of the evidence on record, the charges in the departmental proceeding were serious in nature against the petitioner about financial irregularities. The order of punishment is of dismissal from services, which cannot be said to be unreasonably excessive and it cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate. (iii) 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 by the trial court, therefore, does not ipso facto, absolve the employee from the liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction. The aforesaid view has also been taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajit Kumar Nag v. General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corpn. Acquittal by the trial court, therefore, does not ipso facto, absolve the employee from the liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction. The aforesaid view has also been taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajit Kumar Nag v. General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., Haldia & Others, reported in (2005) 7 SCC 764 . The Hon'ble Apex Court has taken similar view in the case of Suresh Pathrella v. Oriental Bank of Commerce, reported in (2006) 10 SCC 572 , in the case of Southern Railway Officers Association and Another v. Union of India and others, reported in (2009) 9 SCC 24 , in the case of Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. M.G. Vittal Rao, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 442 as well as in the case of Deputy Inspector General of Police and Another v. S. Samuthiram (supra). 8. In view of the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the impugned order of punishment dated 11.07.1987 vide (Annexure-8), passed by the Respondent-Bank, does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, this writ petition, sans merit, is hereby dismissed.