JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner, who was an employee of Uttarakhand Gramine Bank, was put under suspension vide order dated 11.04.2005 and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, as he was found to be guilty in proper performance of his duties. There were also serious charges of misappropriation of fund, deceit etc. against him and after thorough departmental enquiry which were found to be correct and hence, his services were terminated vide order dated 02.08.2008. At the same time, during the pendency of department enquiry, a criminal trial has also been initiated against the petitioner under Sections 409/420/467/468/471 of I.P.C. in which he was convicted vide order dated 29.03.2013 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tehriwal, which was ultimately allowed vide order dated 07.06.2014 and the petitioner was acquitted from the charges leveled against him. Consequently, the petitioner promptly approached the Bank i.e. Uttarakhand Gramine Bank with request to reinstate him in service, as he has been acquitted by the criminal court. The said representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the authority concerned vide order dated 24.02.2015. Hence he preferred present writ petition before this Court challenging the order dated 24.02.2015, by which his representation has been rejected and the order dated 02.08.2008 by which his services has been terminated. 2. Heard Mr. Shiv Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the State and perused the records. 3. This writ petition appears to be totally misconceived, as the first fundamental aspect is that a departmental proceeding is different from a criminal proceeding in its appreciation of evidence, manner of procedure and finally in the establishment of guilt. Whereas in a criminal proceeding the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, in a departmental proceeding and the case can be established on a high degree of probability. The charges in this case have been fully established against the present petitioner in a departmental proceedings and his appeal to that effect in the Department has already been rejected. He was given a full opportunity of hearing in accordance with law, in the entire departmental proceedings. 4. The charges in this case have been fully established against the present petitioner in a departmental proceedings and his appeal to that effect in the Department has already been rejected. He was given a full opportunity of hearing in accordance with law, in the entire departmental proceedings. 4. A similar controversy has already been decided by this Court vide order dated 14.6.2016 in WPSS No. 1155 of 2016 (Bhuwan Chandra Arya Vs State Bank of India & others) in which the petitioner was seeking benefit of Probation of offenders Act. In that case, this Court has held that the petitioner was a Bank employee and the first and foremost condition on which a banking institution works is called “trust”. The petitioner has been charged and found guilty in a departmental proceeding as there are charges established against him of cheating, forgery and criminal breach of trust. Nothing less than a dismissal from service was hence required. 5. This Court also does not find any ground to interfere in the present matter as well, as the charges against the petitioner are serious in nature. Considering the fact that the petitioner is an employee of a Bank, namely, Uttarakhand Gramine Bank, as in the above mentioned case, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the present matter as well. 6. With the aforesaid observations, this Court is of the considered view that the relief, sought by the petitioner, cannot be granted to him and his representation has been rightly rejected. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.