JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. 1. By way of this appeal, the appellants have challenged judgment, dated 30.06.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 966 of 2000, vide which, the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition filed by the present respondents, granted the following reliefs in their favour: “31. In the result the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed in the following terms: (i) The inquiry report dated 1.11.95 (Annexure P-11) is quashed and set aside. (ii) The order dated 14.11.1995 (Annexure P-13), whereby penalty of dismissal from service has been imposed upon the petitioner, is also quashed and set aside. (iii) The appellate order dated 12.8.1996 (Annexure P-15) and the revisionary order dated 9.10.2000 (Annexure P-17) shall also stand quashed and set aside. (iv) The respondents are directed to grant to the petitioner all the consequential benefits from the date of imposition of penalty till the date of final payment. (v) The respondents are also directed to grant pensionary benefits to the petitioner from the date of retirement from active service.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents, namely, Shri K.K. Mahajan was serving as Superintendent-cum-Accountant in the office of Cantonment Board, Dagshai in February, 1994. At the same time, one Shri Surjit Singh was also serving in the said office as Daftri. One Gardner, namely Sh. Palak Ram, who was serving in the Cantonment Board at Dagshai died in harness. Gratuity to the tune of Rs.4,597/- stood sanctioned to be paid in respect of late Shri Palak Ram to his son Deepti Kumar. Shri K.K. Mahajan handed over a cheque for an amount of Rs.1656/- towards part payment of gratuity amount to Deepti Kumar. Allegation was that Shri K.K. Mahajan demanded illegal gratification of an amount of Rs.750/- from Deepti Kumar for the release of balance amount of gratuity. Deepti Kumar rather than obliging Shri. K.K. Mahajan, reported the matter to Anti Corruption Unit, Solan, who laid a trap and allegedly caught Sh. K.K. Mahajan red handed while accepting illegal gratification from Deepti Kumar. This was followed with the registration of a case under Section 7 read with Section 13(1)(a) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against Sh. K.K. Mahajan and co-accused Sh. K.K. Mahajan red handed while accepting illegal gratification from Deepti Kumar. This was followed with the registration of a case under Section 7 read with Section 13(1)(a) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against Sh. K.K. Mahajan and co-accused Sh. Surjeet Singh, Daftri, vide FIR No. 1 of 1994, dated 11.2.1994, at Police Station A.C. Zone, Solan. Disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against Sh. K.K. Mahajan vide charge-sheet, dated 31st May, 1994. In the disciplinary proceedings, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the major penalty of dismissal from service upon Sh. K. K. Mahajan vide resolution, dated 14.11.1995. His appeal was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order, dated 12.08.1996. Revision petition also stood rejected vide order, dated 09.10.2000. Sh. K. K. Mahajan and co-accused were acquitted in criminal case arising out of the incident in issue by the learned Special Judge, Solan vide judgment, dated 22.10.1997. It is a matter of record that Criminal Appeal No. 250 of 1998, so filed against the judgment of acquittal by the State, was dismissed by this Court vide judgment, dated 04.07.2002 and the judgment of acquittal in favour of Sh. K.K. Mahajan thus attained finality. In the backdrop of his acquittal by the learned trial Court, Shri K.K. Sharma filed a writ petition before this Court, i.e., CWP No. 966 of 2000 praying for the following reliefs: “(i) That the order dated 14.11.1995 (Annexure P-13) i.e. the order of imposing of penalty of dismissal from service, may be quashed and set aside. (ii) That the appellate order dated 12.8.1996 (Annexure P-15) may be quashed and set aside. (iii) That the revisionary order dated 9.10.2000 (Annexure P-17) may be quashed and set aside. (iv) That the inquiry report dated 1.11.95 (Annexure P-11) may be quashed and set aside being arrived at without following the principles of law. (v) That the respondents may be directed that the petitioner may be granted all consequential benefits from the date of imposition of penalty till date of final payment. (vi) That the respondent may be directed to grant pensionary benefits to the petitioner from the date of his retirement from active service. (vii) That respondents may be directed to produce entire record pertaining to the case. (vi) That the respondent may be directed to grant pensionary benefits to the petitioner from the date of his retirement from active service. (vii) That respondents may be directed to produce entire record pertaining to the case. (viii) Any other writ, order or direction deemed just and proper by this Hon’ble Court in the light of facts and circumstances of the case mentioned hereinabove may also be passed in favour of the petitioner. (ix) The respondents may be burdened with the cost of this petition throughout.” 3. The stand of the petitioner in the writ petition was that the disciplinary proceedings which were initiated against him were motivated, so was the alleged act of illegal gratification alleged against him, because he in fact while working as office Superintendent-cum-Accountant in Cantonment Board, Dagshai on a supernumerary post was entrusted with the duties of investigation of accounts and circumstances of various irregularities being committed in the official working of the Board and he had unearthed and brought to the notice of the authorities concerned cases of favouritism and mis-appropriation having been committed by various employees of the Board and those employees against whom he had exposed financial irregularities, mis-appropriation and other irregularities, out of ill will against him, had got lodged a false complaint with the vigilance authorities. 4. During the pendency of the petition, Sh. K.K. Mahajan died and his legal representatives were substituted as petitioners before the learned Single Judge. Only respondent No. 3 before the said Court filed reply to the petition. Said respondent, though admitted the factual aspects of the matter, but took the stand that Sh. K.K. Mahajan and his co-accused stood acquitted by the learned trial Court by giving them benefit of doubt and on technical ground of sanction to prosecute being not valid and there was no adjudication on merit in favour of the accused. While allowing the writ petition, learned Single Judge inter alia held that list of witnesses, which was relied upon in the inquiry held against Sh. K.K. Mahajan demonstrated that Mr. Deepti Kumar, Mr. Chet Ram, Mrs. Nirmal Chandel and Mr. N.D. Attri were cited as witnesses against him in the said inquiry. Apart from this, Sh. Surjit Singh, who was a co-accused along with Sh. K.K. Mahajan, was also examined as a witness in the inquiry against Sh. K.K. Mahajan. K.K. Mahajan demonstrated that Mr. Deepti Kumar, Mr. Chet Ram, Mrs. Nirmal Chandel and Mr. N.D. Attri were cited as witnesses against him in the said inquiry. Apart from this, Sh. Surjit Singh, who was a co-accused along with Sh. K.K. Mahajan, was also examined as a witness in the inquiry against Sh. K.K. Mahajan. Learned Single Judge also held that orders appended with the petition demonstrated that Sh. K.K. Mahajan had been called upon to look into various administrative and financial irregularities prevailing in the Cantonment Board, Dagshai and the same was in fact manifest from the copy of Cantonment Board Resolution No. 61, dated 20.03.1993, appended with the petition as Annexure P-32. Learned Single Judge further held that such irregularities were alleged to have been committed by Mr. N.D. Attri, Sh. Surjit Singh, Mrs. Nirmal Chandel, Sh. Jagdish Ram, Sh. Gurdyal, Dr. N.K. Arya, Sh. Om Parkash, Sh. Chaman Lal, Sh. Chet Ram and Sh. Paras Ram. Learned Single Judge also held that subsequently disciplinary action was also initiated against Sh. N.D. Attri, who was placed under suspension and memos were issued Sh. Chet Ram for subletting his official residence to one Mrs. Nirmal Chandel. Show cause was also issued to complainant Sh. Deepti Kumar for overstaying his leave. On these basis, it was held by the learned Single Judge that it could be safely concluded that all the witnesses who were examined in the course of inquiry against Sh. K.K. Mahajan could not be said to be independent witnesses and this aspect of the matter could have very well influenced the independent character and impartiality of the witnesses and also the outcome of the inquiry. Learned Single Judge also held that though it was settled law that criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings could be initiated simultaneously, but the position would be different if both the proceedings are based on same set of facts, charges, evidence and witnesses. Learned Single Judge further held that judgment, dated 22.10.1997, so passed by the learned Special Judge, Solan demonstrated that Sh. K.K. Mahajan and co-accused stood acquitted in the criminal case by extending benefit of doubt in their favour, but harmonious reading of the judgment would go to demonstrate that the case had been decided on merits and neither demand nor acceptance of illegal gratification of Rs.750/- by Sh. K.K. Mahajan stood proved by the prosecution. K.K. Mahajan and co-accused stood acquitted in the criminal case by extending benefit of doubt in their favour, but harmonious reading of the judgment would go to demonstrate that the case had been decided on merits and neither demand nor acceptance of illegal gratification of Rs.750/- by Sh. K.K. Mahajan stood proved by the prosecution. Learned Single Judge held that this inference could be deduced from paras 13 and 14 of the judgment passed by the learned Special Judge. Learned Single Judge also held that this apart, it was also a matter of record that prosecution case also failed on account of faulty prosecution sanction. It was further held by the learned Single Judge that though the statements of the witnesses were recorded on 01.10.1994, 10.10.1994 and 24.10.1994, however, their statements were supplied to Sh. K.K. Mahajan on 25.10.1994, as was evident from Annexure P-24 appended with the writ petition. Learned Single Judge also took note of the stand of respondent No. 3 in its reply to the effect that Sh. K.K. Mahajan was supplied copies of day to day proceedings and the rules were complied with. On these basis, it was held by the learned Single Judge that it could be inferred that some prejudice was caused to the petitioner on account of non-supply of documents and delayed supply of documents and statements of witnesses. Learned Single Judge further went on to hold that taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it shall not be unsafe to conclude that it was not a proven case of misconduct on the part of Sh. K.K. Mahajan in demanding or accepting illegal gratification. Accordingly, learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition in terms already quoted hereinabove. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the department has filed the present appeal. 6. We have heard the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India as well as learned counsel for the respondents. We have also carefully gone through the records of the case. 7. It is not in dispute that FIR No. 1 of 1994, dated 11.02.1994 and disciplinary proceedings stood initiated against Sh. K.K. Mahajan out of the same incident. Now when one peruses the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, Solan, one finds that in para 16 of the judgment, it was held by the learned trial Court that accused are not required to prove their defence to the hilt. K.K. Mahajan out of the same incident. Now when one peruses the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, Solan, one finds that in para 16 of the judgment, it was held by the learned trial Court that accused are not required to prove their defence to the hilt. They are to give only reasonable explanation of their conduct, which they had given and the conduct of the accused did not appear to be inconsistent with innocence. It was specifically held by the learned trial Court in para 17 of the judgment that the prosecution had not been able to establish its case against the accused beyond doubt for demanding and accepting bribe of Rs.750/- for releasing gratuity in favour of Sh. Palak Ram. Learned trial Court also held that Sh. K.K. Mahajan was an employee of Cantonment Board Subathu, from where he came to Cantonment Board, Dagshai after creation of post of OS-Cum-Accountant at Dagshai. According to learned trial Court both these Boards were distinct and therefore, though Cantonment Board, Subathu was competent to grant sanction to prosecute Sh. K. K. Mahajan, but the sanction granted by Cantonment Board, Dagshai was not a valid sanction. In appeal, this Court while upholding the said judgment of acquittal held as under: “There is no denying that the amount of Rs.750/- was recovered from the possession of respondent Surjeet Singh. It is not the case of the prosecution that the two respondents had conspired and were acting in connivance with each other. There is no evidence on the record to show that any “demand” of illegal gratification was made by respondent Surjeet Singh or that the amount of Rs.750/- was paid to or handed over to him by PW-1 pursuant to a demand. It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in G.V. Nanjundiah V. State (Delhi Administration) (1988 Cr. L.J. 152) that when it is found that no demand was made by the accused, the Court will view the allegations of payment of bribe with suspicion and no conviction can be maintained. Thus, in view of the admitted position that no demand of bribe was made by respondent Surjeet Singh and in the absence of allegations and evidence that he was acting in connivance and conspiracy with respondent K.K. Mahajan, he stands rightly acquitted by the learned Special Judge. Such acquittal does not call for any interference.” 8. Thus, in view of the admitted position that no demand of bribe was made by respondent Surjeet Singh and in the absence of allegations and evidence that he was acting in connivance and conspiracy with respondent K.K. Mahajan, he stands rightly acquitted by the learned Special Judge. Such acquittal does not call for any interference.” 8. This Court also concurred with the findings returned by the learned trial Court that prosecution sanction granted against Sh. K.K. Mahajan was not a valid sanction. 9. Further, a perusal of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge demonstrates that what weighed with the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition was not only the fact that Sh. K.K. Mahajan stood acquitted in the course of criminal case, but also that the inquiry which was held against Shri K.K. Mahajan was not a fair inquiry and in fact there was merit in the contention of the delinquent officer that the entire proceedings initiated against him were motivated. Findings so returned by the learned Single Judge are duly substantiated from the material on record and in our considered view, findings so returned by the learned Single Judge are correct findings. During the course of arguments, it could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the witnesses who were examined by the department to prove its case against Shri K.K. Mahajan, stood implicated in one way or the other by the department on the basis of the inquiry, which was entrusted by the Board to the petitioner. Though it is settled law that unlike a criminal case where the guilt of the accused has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, the delinquent officer in departmental proceedings can be punished on the basis of preponderance of probability, but even then, the preponderance of probability cannot be on conjectures and surmises. Here is a case where in the criminal trial, learned trial Court as well as in appeal this Court have held that the prosecution was not able to prove either the demand of bribe by Sh. K.K. Majahan from Deepti Kumar nor payment of the same to Sh. K.K. Mahajan stood proved. In our considered view, even in the departmental inquiry, it cannot be said that the same stood proved against Sh. K.K. Majahan from Deepti Kumar nor payment of the same to Sh. K.K. Mahajan stood proved. In our considered view, even in the departmental inquiry, it cannot be said that the same stood proved against Sh. K.K. Mahajan even to the extent of preponderance of probability, because it stands established on record that the complainant as well as all other witnesses, who were examined by the department were inimical to Sh. K.K. Mahajan. Thus, here is a case where the inquiry report was based on the testimonies of those witnesses, who were interested witnesses and whose veracity was doubtful. Not only this, it also stands proved on record that even the statements of the witnesses were not handed over to Shri K.K. Mahajan on the same day when the same were recorded, which raises doubts upon the fairness of the inquiry officer. 10. Besides this, one of the witnesses, who had deposed before the Inquiry Officer, stated before the learned Special Judge, Solan, as is evident from Annexure P-25 appended with the petition that statement in the file of inquiry Ex. PD purportedly made by him was not his statement. In fact all this has also been aptly dealt with by the learned Single Judge in his judgment, which stands assailed in this appeal. We find that it is not as if learned Single Judge has after holding that benefit of doubt was given to Sh. K.K. Mahajan by the learned trial Court went ahead to quash the disciplinary proceedings. Learned Single Judge held that a harmonious reading of the judgment so passed by the learned trial Court demonstrated that the acquittal of Sh. K.K. Mahajan besides on the ground that there was no valid sanction to prosecute him was also on merit. In our considered view also, the acquittal of Sh. K.K. Mahajan by the learned trial Court besides on technical grounds was also on merit, as is evident from the discussion we have already made above. Not only this, in appeal also, this Court vide judgment, dated 04.07.2002 had recorded that there was no evidence on record to show that any demand of illegal gratification was made by the accused therein or that an amount of Rs.750/- was paid or handed over to co-accused Surjeet Singh by the complainant. 11. Not only this, in appeal also, this Court vide judgment, dated 04.07.2002 had recorded that there was no evidence on record to show that any demand of illegal gratification was made by the accused therein or that an amount of Rs.750/- was paid or handed over to co-accused Surjeet Singh by the complainant. 11. In view of above discussion, in our considered view, learned Single Judge has correctly appreciated the facts of the case and has committed no illegality in allowing the writ petition vide judgment, dated 30.06.2010. Accordingly, as we do not find any merit in the present appeal, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.