ORDER : Leave granted. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. An allegation was made against the appellant for demanding bribe on a couple of occasions in July and August, 1997 from some farmers. However, the farmers made a complaint against the appellant only some time in March, 1999. 4. Thereafter, an FIR was lodged against the appellant on 23.06.1999. Criminal prosecution was initiated against the appellant under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, but by an order dated 03.01.2005, the appellant was acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. The decision of the Special Judge was not appealed against by the State. 5. During the pendency of the criminal proceedings, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the appellant and as a result of that enquiry, the appellant was found guilty of Charge No.1 while Charge Nos. 2 and 3 were found partly proved. On the basis of the departmental enquiry and the guilt of the appellant having been proved therein, the appellant was dismissed from service on 15.01.2005 soon after his acquittal in the criminal prosecution. The appellant was obviously aggrieved by his dismissal from service and, therefore, preferred a writ petition in the Madhya Pradesh High Court. That writ petition came to be dismissed by an order dated 26.06.2008 by a learned Single Judge. 6. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the appellant preferred Writ Appeal No.723 of 2008 which came to be dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated 12.03.2013. 7. It is true that a departmental proceeding can continue even if a delinquent officer is acquitted of criminal charges on the ground of benefit of doubt having been given to him. However, in this particular case, the appellant was acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. In addition thereto, it is important to note that the allegations against the appellant were made two years after the alleged demand of bribe. These factors should have been taken into consideration by the departmental authorities as well as by the High Court. 8. However, in this particular case, the appellant was acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. In addition thereto, it is important to note that the allegations against the appellant were made two years after the alleged demand of bribe. These factors should have been taken into consideration by the departmental authorities as well as by the High Court. 8. In view of the fact that there was a considerable delay in levelling charges against the appellant as well as the acquittal of the appellant of all the charges against him by the Special Judge and which judgment has been accepted by the State, we are of the view that the High Court and the departmental authorities were in error in directing the dismissal of the appellant. 9. Under the circumstances, the order passed by the High Court is set aside and the departmental proceedings against the appellant are quashed. 10. The appellant will be entitled to consequential benefits and will be entitled only to 50% back wages. We are told that the appellant has since superannuated. If that is so, he will be entitled to his pension also. 11. The appeal is disposed of.