JUDGMENT : A.S. Supehia, J. 1. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 9-8-2002 imposing penalty of reduction in the basic pay of Rs. 2,750/- for two years from 1-5-2002 as well as the orders dated 28-8-2002 and dated 27-7-2006 passed in the appeal and the revision respectively by the competent authorities. 2. The brief facts are adumbrated of the case are as under: 2.1. The petitioner was working as an Armed Police Constable at Bhavnagar. On 29-7-1998, the respondent No. 1 served a charge-sheet for the alleged misconduct that the petitioner while he was assigned the duty of taking the prisoner at Sir-T Hospital, Bhavnagar at the Prisoners' ward on 28-5-1996, the said prisoner namely, Chaturji Mohanji escaped from his custody. A regular departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner and the alleged charges are partly proved against the petitioner. Pursuant to the aforesaid charges being proved, respondent No. 1 passed the order dated 9-8-2002, imposing penalty of reduction in basis pay and placed him in the pay of Rs. 2,750/- instead of Rs. 3,170/- for two years from 1-5-2002. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed by the respondent No. 1 vide order dated 28-8-2002. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a Revision Application before the respondent No. 3, which was also dismissed vide order dated 27-7-2006. 3. Learned Advocate Mr. Kunal Shah appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the revisional authority i.e. respondent No. 3 has ignored the fact that the petitioner is acquitted in the criminal. He has submitted that pursuant to the case filed against the petitioner being Criminal Case No. 3787 of 1996, the petitioner has been acquitted by the Criminal Court vide judgment and order dated 30-8-1996. He further submitted that though the judgment and order of the Criminal Court states that the petitioner has been acquitted on benefit of doubt but in fact he has been acquitted on merits. He has submitted though his acquittal was brought to the notice of the competent authority the same is not considered by the respective authorities while passing the impugned orders. 3.1. Learned Advocate Mr. Kunal Shah also invited attention of this Court to the findings of the Inquiry Officer. He has submitted though his acquittal was brought to the notice of the competent authority the same is not considered by the respective authorities while passing the impugned orders. 3.1. Learned Advocate Mr. Kunal Shah also invited attention of this Court to the findings of the Inquiry Officer. He has submitted that the Inquiry Officer in the inquiry report has also recorded the statement of the concerned detenue, who has stated that at the time when he escaped from the custody, the concerned police personnel was wearing different clothes than the petitioner. Thus, the learned Advocate has submitted that the petitioner has been wrongly roped in the entire episode, and in fact he is not involved in any manner of letting the prisoner who fled away from the custody. Learned Advocate has submitted that it cannot be said that the petitioner was negligent in his duty, and hence, the impugned penalty is harsh and disproportionate to the misconduct. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment in the case of G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat, 2006 (2) GLH 533 (SC) : [ 2006 (3) GLR 2348 (SC)], for the proposition of law that once an employee has been acquitted in the Criminal Court then no penalty can be imposed upon him if the charges are similar. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Hardik Soni per contra submitted that considering the findings of the respondent-authorities and the guilt of the petitioner and looking to the negligence part of the petitioner, penalty imposed upon him cannot be said to be disproportionate and harsh. He also submitted that the petitioner has been acquitted by giving benefit of doubt. The penalty cannot be set aside merely because the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case. He has submitted that the criminal case as well as the departmental proceedings are governed by the different sets of evidence, and hence, the acquittal has no bearing on the findings of the Inquiry Officer. 5. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties. 6. It is undisputed fact that the petitioner was along with three other Constables was assigned the duty on 28-5-1996 at Prisoner's ward at Sir-T Hospital, Bhavnagar. The detenue-Chaturji Mohanji was facing charges under the Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act escaped on 28-5-1996. 5. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties. 6. It is undisputed fact that the petitioner was along with three other Constables was assigned the duty on 28-5-1996 at Prisoner's ward at Sir-T Hospital, Bhavnagar. The detenue-Chaturji Mohanji was facing charges under the Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act escaped on 28-5-1996. Learned Advocate has submitted that there cannot be any ill-intention on the part of the petitioner since the detenue had escaped on the pretext of answering nature call. For the said incident, the petitioner also prosecuted in the Criminal Court. Vide judgment and order dated 30-8-1996, the petitioner was acquitted by giving benefit of doubt. This Court has perused the judgment and order of the Criminal Court. Perusal of the said judgment would indicate that the findings are recorded on the basis of lack of evidence and the petitioner was acquitted by giving the benefit of doubt. 7. It would be apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Man Mohan Nath Sinha, 2009 (8) SCC 310 , wherein the Apex Court has observed thus: "The legal position is well settled that the power of judicial review is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision-making process. The Court does not sit in judgment on merits of the decision. It is not open to the High Court to re-appreciate and re-appraise the evidence led before the Inquiry Officer and examine the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer as a Court of appeal and reach its own conclusions. In the instant case, the High Court fell into grave error in scanning the evidence as if it was a Court of appeal. The approach of the High Court in consideration of the matter suffers fresh consideration by the High Court in accordance with law. On this short ground, we sent the matter back to the High Court." 8. In the instant case, the High Court fell into grave error in scanning the evidence as if it was a Court of appeal. The approach of the High Court in consideration of the matter suffers fresh consideration by the High Court in accordance with law. On this short ground, we sent the matter back to the High Court." 8. The Apex Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723 , has observed thus: "There is no warrant for the view expressed by the High Court that in considering whether a Public Officer is guilty of the misconduct charged against him, the rule followed in criminal trials that an offence is not established unless proved by evidence beyond reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the Court, must be applied, and if that rule be not applied, the High Court in a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution is competent to declare the order of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry invalid. The High Court is not constituted in a proceeding under Art. 226 of the Constitution a Court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant : it is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the Rules of natural justice are not violated. Where there is some evidence, which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a petition for a writ under Art. 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. The High Court may undoubtedly interfere where the departmental authorities have held the proceedings against the delinquent in a manner inconsistent with the Rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case or by allowing themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations or where the conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion, or on similar grounds. But the departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole Judges of facts and if there be some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under Art. 226 of the Constitution. In our judgment, the proceedings before the departmental authorities were regular and were not vitiated on account of any breach of the rules of natural justice. The conclusions of the departmental officers were fully borne out by the evidence before them and the High Court had no jurisdiction to set aside the order either on the ground that the "approach to the evidence was not consistent with the approach in a Criminal Case", nor on the ground that the High Court would have on that evidence come to a different conclusion. The respondent had also ample opportunity of examining his witnesses after he was informed of the charge against him. The conclusion recorded by the punishing authority, was therefore, not open to be canvassed, nor was the liability of the respondent to be punished by removal from service open to question before the High Court." 9. In the present case also, the writ petition remains silent on the aspect of violation of any statutory rules governing the disciplinary proceedings. There is no challenge to the decision-making process of the departmental proceedings as there is no allegation that the disciplinary proceedings of the respondent-authority has violated any statutory rules. It is also not alleged that there is any violation of principles of natural justice. There is no challenge to the decision-making process of the departmental proceedings as there is no allegation that the disciplinary proceedings of the respondent-authority has violated any statutory rules. It is also not alleged that there is any violation of principles of natural justice. The Apex Court has observed that the Court does not sit in judgment on merits of the decision, but it is confined to the decision-making process and it is not open to the High Court to re-appreciate and re-appraise the evidence led before the Inquiry Officer and examine the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer and reach to conclusion. 10. The Apex Court in the case of Deputy Inspector General of Police v. S. Samuthiram, 2013 (1) SCC 598 has held that mere acquittal of an employee by a Criminal Court has no impact on the disciplinary proceeding initiated by the Department. In the absence of any provision in the Service Rule for reinstatement, if an employee is honourably acquitted by a Criminal Court, no right is conferred on the employee to claim any benefit including reinstatement. 11. The Apex Court has also observed that reason is that the standard of proof required for holding a person guilty by a Criminal Court and the inquiry conducted by way of disciplinary proceeding is entirely different. In a Criminal Case, the onus of establishing the guilt of the accused is on the prosecution and if it fails to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is assumed to be innocent. It is settled law that the strict burden of proof required to establish guilt in a Criminal Court is not required in a disciplinary proceedings and preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. In the present case, the Inquiry Officer, after detailed examination of the witnesses and the evidence has partly proved the charges against the petitioner. In the contra finding of this Court, the petitioner has been imposed lesser punishment to the gravity of the charges. The petitioner is punished by imposing penalty of deduction in the basic pay for two years, the same cannot be, in any manner, said to the disproportionate. 12. In the contra finding of this Court, the petitioner has been imposed lesser punishment to the gravity of the charges. The petitioner is punished by imposing penalty of deduction in the basic pay for two years, the same cannot be, in any manner, said to the disproportionate. 12. The judgment cited by the learned Advocate in the case of G.M. Tank, 2006 (3) GLR 2348 (SC)], cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner, since in the case before the Apex Court, the employee was honorably acquitted in the Criminal Case whereas in the present case, the petitioner is not honorably acquitted. 13. In view of the aforesaid law enunciated by the Apex Court, the petition fails and the same stands dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.