ORDER : The present petition is directed against the order dated 08.12.2016 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal for the sake of brevity), whereby, the Tribunal for the reasons recorded in the order has dismissed the application and has declined to interfere with the action of the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings. 2. We have heard Mr.C.R.Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. 3. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner was that in the criminal case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the petitioner has been acquitted for the same charges and for same incident the departmental proceedings could not be initiated. He submitted that the Tribunal has not properly considered the said aspect. 4. Learned Counsel mainly relied upon the decision of the Apex court in the case of Joginder Singh Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others reported at (2015) 2 SCC 377 and contended that as per the said decision, the departmental proceedings could not be initiated for the same incident having same charges. It was submitted that the Tribunal has not properly considered the said aspect and hence this Court may consider in the present matter. 5. We may record that this Court in case of S.T.Chandregowda and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others in Writ Petition No.42919/2016 & W.P.No.58839/2016 and allied matters disposed of on 28.11.2016 had an occasion to consider the similar contention, but of course, after completion of the enquiry and after imposition of the penalty in the disciplinary proceedings. This Court in the said decision dated 28.11.2016 in case of S.T.Chandregowda (supra) observed at paragraphs 3 to 5 which read as under: 3. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners was that in the criminal case, on the basis of the charges leveled against them, there was acquittal of all the petitioners and as such, his submission was a ‘honourable acquittal’. It was submitted that the matter was carried in appeal before this Court but, the said appeal was also dismissed and the judgment and order of the Sessions Court is confirmed. He submitted that, on the basis of same charges, disciplinary proceedings could not have been initiated. Further, he submitted that the witnesses were also substantially same as they were examined in the criminal case. He submitted that, on the basis of same charges, disciplinary proceedings could not have been initiated. Further, he submitted that the witnesses were also substantially same as they were examined in the criminal case. The evidence in the disciplinary proceedings, if not in conformity with the criminal case, the same could not have been considered by the Enquiry Officer. He submitted that, the Enquiry Officer has not properly appreciated the aspect that certain witnesses credibly was doubted by the Criminal Court and the testimony were also discarded but, the Enquiry Officer took up a different stand and considered the evidence and has recorded the finding. He submitted that such finding could not have been recorded and therefore, the enquiry can be said to be vitiated. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Lokayuktha, while forwarding the report could not have recommended for a particular penalty against the delinquent officers, but the same has been forwarded for consideration and has been considered by the disciplinary authority. He also submitted that, the Tribunal has not properly considered the aforesaid aspect and this Court may consider in the present petition. 4. It is now well settled that there can be a disciplinary proceeding for the same instance, even if the criminal case is registered and the criminal prosecution is made before the Criminal Court. There is no bar operating for initiation or continuation of the disciplinary proceedings. The attempt to contend that the witnesses were same and therefore, different evidence before the Criminal Court as well as before the Enquiry Officer could not be given different treatment cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that, the standard of proof required in a criminal case is proof beyond reasonable doubt, but in the departmental proceedings, it would be on the preponderance of the circumstances. The contention raised that there was ‘honourable acquittal’ by the Criminal Court cannot be accepted for the simple reason that, it was not a case where witnesses stood by the case of the prosecution and upon appreciation of the evidence, the Criminal Court discarded the evidence and found as with material contradiction and as a result thereof, the acquittal was granted. In the present case, the very witnesses have turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. In the present case, the very witnesses have turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. In a criminal case, when the witnesses have turned hostile and the prosecution has confronted with such witness and thereafter the Criminal Court has recorded the finding of no proof beyond reasonable doubt, the same cannot be termed as ‘honourable acquittal’ as sought to be canvassed. Under the circumstances, we find that the contention raised is without any merit. 5. The decision of the Apex Court in case of S. Bhaskar Reddy vs Supt. of Police reported in (2015) 2 SCC 365 as well as another decision in case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs Bharath Gold Mines Ltd., and another reported in AIR 1999 SC Page 1416 are of no help to the petitioners because, those were not the matters pertaining to the discharge of the duty by the employee concerned but, they were pertaining to the aspect other than discharge of duty. Hence, reliance placed upon the said decisions is ill-founded. The aforesaid shows that in the said decision, this Court distinguished the decision of the Apex Court in the case of S.Bhaskar Reddy (supra) by observing that those matters were not pertaining to the discharge of duty by employee concerned, but were pertaining to the aspects other than discharge of the duty and therefore, the said decisions are of no help to the employee against whom the departmental proceedings were initiated for the same incident, wherein he was acquitted by the Criminal Court. 6. We may usefully refer to another decision of this Court in the case of S.Mahadevaswamy Vs. State of Karnataka And Others reported at 2016(6) Kar.L.J. 59 wherein also reliance was placed by the learned Counsel for the employee who challenged the disciplinary proceedings contending interalia that he was acquitted by the Criminal Court for the same incident. This Court in the said decision had reiterated the same view at paragraph 9 of the said decision which reads as under: “9. In the decision of Joginder Singh v Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others, more or less similar facts which were considered by the Apex Court as that of Gurpal Singh’s case (supra), inasmuch as the appellant/petitioner was declared as a successful candidate for the employment but upon verification of the antecedent, it was found that he was involved in some other criminal case. In any case, the criminal case or the incident which was subject-matter of the criminal case was not pertaining to the discharge of duty by the employee concerned. Hence, the said decision would be of no help to the learned Counsel for the petitioner.” 7. We may record at this stage that the matter at this stage for initiation of the enquiry and the said enquiry is in progress. Under these circumstances, if the Tribunal has declined interference, we do not find that the view taken by the Tribunal can be said as erroneous which may call for interference in exercise of the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. In view of the above, we do not find any case made out for interference. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.