JUDGMENT : Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. 1. Petitioner, by way of this writ petition, has prayed to quash and set aside the enquiry report dated 21.08.2001, punishment order dated 17.05.2003, appellate order dated 03.11.2003 and the review order dated 10.08.2007 thereby holding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him, dismissing him from service and rejecting the departmental appeal as well as the review petition affirming the order of punishment. 2. Brief facts, which have come on record, are that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable in 5th Battalion of RAC. A departmental enquiry was initiated against him under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 [hereinafter referred to as CCA Rules of 1958]. The Adjutant, 5th Battalion of RAC submitted enquiry report on 21.08.2001 and found the charges levelled against the petitioner as proved. The allegations against the petitioner were that he had submitted forged certificate regarding his age and it was alleged that the actual date of birth of the petitioner was 24.07.1970 while the certificate mentioned the date of birth as 08.11.1976 and he had already crossed the maximum age limit of 21 years and has got his appointment fraudulently. In this regard, an FIR No. 514/1999 was also registered under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC on 16th September, 1999 at Police Station Nadbai. The second charge levelled against the petitioner was with regard to the having demanded dowry from his wife, causing cruelty, giving beating and misbehaving with her in inhuman manner. It was alleged that he had thrown out his wife and four years' old daughter and had also entered into second marriage for which an FIR No. 513/1999 came to be registered against him on 21.06.1999 under Section 494, 398A IPC and charge-sheet had also been submitted before the Court of ACJM No. 1, Bharatpur where the trial was going on. Apart from the misconduct, offence of entering into second marriage in terms of Rule 25 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971 was also alleged. The enquiry officer conduct enquiry by recording evidence and held the charges proved. On account thereof, orders were passed of dismissing him from service. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the enquiry has not been conducted in a fair and proper manner. The enquiry officer conduct enquiry by recording evidence and held the charges proved. On account thereof, orders were passed of dismissing him from service. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the enquiry has not been conducted in a fair and proper manner. With regard to the case registered under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, case was not found to be proved and the final report submitted by the police had been accepted by the Court of ACJM No. 1, Bharatpur and thus, on the self same charges, the petitioner could not have been held guilty in departmental enquiry. With regard to the second charge, it is submitted by the learned counsel that after holding a trial, the petitioner had been acquitted of the offence alleged under Section 494, 498A IPC vide judgment dated 16.07.2003. It was submitted that the enquiry was conducted ex-parte without giving prior notice to the departmental counsel appointed by the petitioner and no opportunity of cross-examination was given to him. 4. After issuing notices of the writ petition, the respondents submitted their reply wherein it was pointed out that the petitioner had been rightly held guilty for Charge No. 1. It was stated that in his application form for getting appointment, in column number 9, he had mentioned his education as Middle Pass from Ambedkar Adarsh Vidhya Mandir, Bansikala, District Bharatpur and in Transfer Certificate of Ambedkar Adarsh Upper Primary School, Bansikaloa, Bharatpur, the date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 08.11.1976 and the admission number was mentioned as 1252. On the marks-sheet of the petitioner, Roll Number, Year and Session had not been mentioned. It was stated that on enquiry and investigation, it was found that the admission number 1252 was that of one Kumari Kamlesh Devi who had studied from 11.07.1994 to 15.05.1995. Copy of the SR Register has also been placed along with reply. The petitioner had not studied in the said school namely; Ambedkar Adarsh Upper Primary Schyool Bansikala. On the other hand, he had taken admission on 14.08.1975 in Class I in Government Upper Primary School, Tohila, Nadbadi, District Bharatpur and passed 8th Class on 05.05.1984 as is evident from the SR Register of the said school and his name is shown at No. 68 in the said Register. On the other hand, he had taken admission on 14.08.1975 in Class I in Government Upper Primary School, Tohila, Nadbadi, District Bharatpur and passed 8th Class on 05.05.1984 as is evident from the SR Register of the said school and his name is shown at No. 68 in the said Register. The Transfer Certificate was also issued by the said School wherein the date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 24.07.1970 and thus had already crossed the age to be appointed in RAC as a Constable. With regard to the Final Report submitted by the Police in relation to the criminal case, it is stated that legal opinion had been provided by the APP mentioning that there is provision under Section 195(1) B-2 Cr.P.C. and since the FIR had been lodged by one Yadram, who was not competent to lodge the said criminal case, hence the Police submitted Final Report which was accepted by the ACJM No. 1, Bharatpur. It was not a case where the Police had reached to a conclusion that the documents were not forged and such an investigation had not been submitted by the Police. Thus, the arguments raised by the petitioner were misleading. It has been further stated that with regard to acquittal in case for offence under Section 494, 498-A IPC, the petitioner had been given the benefit of doubt which could not be a basis for taking a decision in departmental enquiry. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that this Court would be slow in substituting its own opinion to that of the opinion arrived at by an enquiry officer in a departmental enquiry which has been accepted by the disciplinary authority. It is pointed out that there has been no lacunae in conducting the departmental enquiry by the concerned enquiry officer. The petitioner had been duly informed to appear before the enquiry officer on 26.02.2001 vide letter dated 24.01.2001 which was duly received by him on 27.01.2001. The signatures on the receipt are available of such a notice and the petitioner willingly did not appear on 26.02.2001 nor his defence assistant was present on the said date and therefore, the ex-parte statement of Shri Darab Singh was recorded. The signatures on the receipt are available of such a notice and the petitioner willingly did not appear on 26.02.2001 nor his defence assistant was present on the said date and therefore, the ex-parte statement of Shri Darab Singh was recorded. The enquiry was again posted for 14.03.2001 and notice to this effect was duly received by the petitioner along with his defence assistant who chose not to appear again on 14.03.2001. The enquiry officer again fixed the date of 10.05.2001 after due notice but the petitioner did not choose to appear nor his defence assistant appeared and after the petitioner appeared along with his defence counsel, the statement of witness Deen Mohammad and thereafter the statement of witness Shri Pritam Singh were recorded and the petitioner has marked his signatures on both the statements. Similarly, the statement of Chandan Singh and Ramswaroop Sharma was recorded in presence of the petitioner and thus it cannot be said that the petitioner was not given proper and fair opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. He was also given fair opportunity to produce his defence by issuing a letter to him and it is only thereafter that the enquiry officer has submitted his report. Thus, the statement of the petitioner has not been accepted by counsel for the respondents and it is submitted that the enquiry proceedings did not call for any interference. 6. Faced with the submissions of the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that so far as the charge regarding bigamy is concerned, once it has not been found to be proved, merely because the Court has mentioned of having given benefit of doubt, would not mean that the petitioner has not been acquitted honorably. It is submitted that the evidence, given by the witnessed produced during the criminal trial, could not have been interpreted differently in departmental enquiry proceedings. The witnesses clearly deposed that there had been no second marriage of the petitioner and the complete judgment must be read as a whole. As regards the final report, it is submitted that the final report submitted by the Police was on both the aspects relating to Section 195(1) B-2 Cr.P.C. as also that no evidence was available. 7. The witnesses clearly deposed that there had been no second marriage of the petitioner and the complete judgment must be read as a whole. As regards the final report, it is submitted that the final report submitted by the Police was on both the aspects relating to Section 195(1) B-2 Cr.P.C. as also that no evidence was available. 7. Having reflected to the submissions made by counsel for both the parties and after scanning the record, this Court finds that the enquiry officer has conducted the enquiry in a fair and proper manner and after recording evidence during the course of enquiry, he has reached to the conclusion of holding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. A look at the certificate issued also clearly shows that the petitioner has attempted to mislead the authorities while seeking appointment. It is the preponderance of probability of the charge that is to be examined in the departmental proceedings and the element of strict proof in criminal case, would not apply to the departmental proceedings. Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Another, (1999) 3 SCC 679 , wherein it has been held as under:- "There is yet another reason for discarding the whole of the case of the respondents. As pointed out earlier, the criminal case as also the departmental proceedings were based on identical set of facts, namely the raid conducted at the appellant's residence and recovery of incriminating articles therefrom. The findings recorded by the enquiry officer, a copy of which has been placed before us, indicate that the charges framed against the appellant were sought to be proved by police officers and panch witnesses, who had raided the house of the appellant and had effected recovery. They were the only witnesses examined by the Inquiry Officer and the Inquiry Officer, relying upon their statements, came to the conclusion that the charges were established against the appellant. The same witnesses were examined in the criminal case but the court, on a consideration of the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that no search was conducted nor was any recovery made from the residence of the appellant. The whole case of the prosecution was thrown out and the appellant was acquitted. The same witnesses were examined in the criminal case but the court, on a consideration of the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that no search was conducted nor was any recovery made from the residence of the appellant. The whole case of the prosecution was thrown out and the appellant was acquitted. In this situation, therefore, where the appellant is acquitted by a judicial pronouncement with the finding that the "raid and recovery" at the residence of the appellant were not proved, it would be unjust, unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded at the ex-parte departmental proceedings, to stand." 8. From above, it can be stated that if the same set of witnesses have been examined in both the criminal case as well as departmental enquiry, the conclusions cannot be different but if the criminal case registered does not lead to trial by a competent court and a final report is submitted, the departmental enquiry can be continued and it can give a verdict different from the investigation report submitted by the Police as the level of preponderance of evidence in the departmental enquiry cannot be considered to be the same as for the level of strict proof in a criminal case. 9. Thus, in the present case, relating to charge no. 1, merely because the investigation in criminal case was closed by submitting of final report by Police, the proceedings conducted in departmental enquiry cannot be faulted. 10. Similarly, with regard to the second charge, this Court is satisfied that the enquiry officer has rightly reached to a conclusion regarding the allegations against the petitioner. The disciplinary authority has discussed all the aspects of the matter independently and has even discussed the facts relating to the certificate and there has been a complete application of mind. The appellate authority has also discussed the case though in a cursory manner but in review petition, the certificates, which were produced, have been also discussed. 11. In these circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to quash and set aside the well reasoned order passed by the disciplinary authority. Consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.