JUDGMENT : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. The order delivered by Central Administrative Tribunal on 27th January, 2004 in OA No. 2044 of 2002 dismissing it, is questioned by petitioner in present matter. After departmental enquiry, by order dated 08th December, 2001, he has been compulsorily retired. In OA, he questioned it unsuccessfully. 2. For very same incident, a criminal prosecution was also instituted. Court of JMFC (Railways), Nagpur has acquitted him vide judgment delivered on 12.11.2007. It is not in dispute that he has reached the age of superannuation on 31st July, 2018. 3. It is in this backdrop, Advocate Pandey on behalf of the petitioner submits that proceedings in departmental enquiry were exparte and petitioner never received any notice for appearance before Enquiry Officer. As such, he could not participate and cross-examine prosecution witness or then lead evidence in defence. Therefore, the procedure adopted in departmental enquiry is in violation of principle of natural justice and hence enquiry report or then order of compulsory retirement based upon it are liable to be quashed. 4. Without prejudice, he points out that more than three years after the order of CAT, competent Court has acquitted petitioner of criminal charge. This acquittal, therefore, shows that petitioner was falsely implicated and subjected to departmental enquiry. He has also invited our attention to a letter of Railway Board dated 29.04.1985 by which Railway has clarified that acquittal by a competent Court needs to be accepted and treated as clean acquittal without making any distinction as acquittal honourable or one after giving benefit of doubt. He has also read out relevant portion of the judgment to urge that there is a specific finding that no incriminating evidence could be produced on record by prosecution. He submits that after this finding, language employed in judgment indicating extension of benefit of doubt really is inadvertent error and acquittal must be seen as honourable acquittal. He has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat and others (reported at 2006 (5) SCC 446 ) to submit that in this situation, acquittal by criminal Court must prevail and as it is during pendency of challenge to punishment order, the punishment order must be quashed and set aside. He, therefore, seeks relief of reinstatement of petitioner with continuity of service and full back wages till attaining the age of superannuation. 5. He, therefore, seeks relief of reinstatement of petitioner with continuity of service and full back wages till attaining the age of superannuation. 5. Shri Lambat, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents submits that letter dated 29.04.1985 issued by Railway Board is to take care of contingencies in which period of interim suspension is to be regularized. He states that said letter does not mean that after acquittal, employee like petitioner must be reinstated. He has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.P. Electricity Board v. Jagdish Chandra Sharma (reported at 2005 (3) SCC 401 ) to urge that insubordination and aggressive behaviour or attack on superior is condemned by Hon'ble Apex Court also and the punishment, therefore, cannot be said to be disproportionate. 6. Finding of Enquiry Officer is also read out to show that during departmental enquiry, an independent eye witness namely Shri T.K. Mukherjee has supported the case of employer. Said evidence and other material is used to report positive finding by Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority has accepted it. Advocate Lambat also reads out consideration by Central Administrative Tribunal in paragraphs 5 and 6 as also paragraph 7. He contends that there is no jurisdictional error or perversity. While distinguishing judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat and others (cited supra), he points out that there very same material and evidence was looked into in criminal trial and nature of charge was also not different. Here, the eye witness namely Shri Mukherjee was not examined before criminal Court and hence judgment of acquittal, which has been delivered almost six years after the punishment of compulsory retirement, is irrelevant. He further submits that the Court acquitting petitioner has commented upon evidence of complainant and it appears that most of the witnesses have turned hostile. He states that the said Court has concluded the consideration by observing that petitioner is entitled to benefit of doubt. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of writ petition. 7. As punishment of compulsory retirement is after departmental enquiry, it was for petitioner to demonstrate before CAT that enquiry is vitiated on account of procedural lacunae. The relevant portion of order delivered by CAT shows that several opportunities were given to petitioner to appear and defend. But, he failed to do so. 7. As punishment of compulsory retirement is after departmental enquiry, it was for petitioner to demonstrate before CAT that enquiry is vitiated on account of procedural lacunae. The relevant portion of order delivered by CAT shows that several opportunities were given to petitioner to appear and defend. But, he failed to do so. The CAT has also taken note of fact that because of grievance made by petitioner on 11.06.2000, Enquiry Officer was changed and in place of Shri Pradeep Kamble, one Shri D.K. Roy was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Facts also show that petitioner had earlier approached this Court in writ petition unsuccessfully and in that petition High Court had directed expeditious conclusion of departmental enquiry. After change of Enquiry Officer, communications sent by Enquiry Officer to petitioner to appear with date of issue, date of service upon petitioner and scheduled date in departmental enquiry are all mentioned by CAT in paragraph 6 of its order. It appears that last of such letter was dated 19.09.2001 and it communicated to petitioner that next date scheduled then was 26.09.2001. This letter was received by petitioner on 24.09.2001 as per acknowledgment on record. CAT has also taken note of fact that petitioner was given a defence Counsel in departmental enquiry and this intimation of date was also independently served on that Counsel. Still nobody had appeared. All these are findings of fact and though learned Counsel Shri Pandey has attempted to challenge the same, there are no specific grounds raised in this respect. The petitioner has nowhere urged that these notices were served upon him or acknowledgment looked into by CAT is not signed by him or then there was no such acknowledgment on record at all. 8. The material, therefore, shows that for defending himself, petitioner was given a Counsel by his employer in departmental enquiry, three-four intimations were sent to him to appear and participate. But, he did not appear before Enquiry Officer and because of his grievance against Shri Kamble, Enquiry Officer was also changed. The petitioner had also approached this Court earlier in a writ petition. These facts, therefore, show that petitioner did not deliberately participate in departmental enquiry and permitted it to proceed exparte. 9. Even after exparte enquiry, Disciplinary Authority has followed proper procedure before inflicting punishment. There is no challenge to this part of departmental enquiry. 10. The petitioner had also approached this Court earlier in a writ petition. These facts, therefore, show that petitioner did not deliberately participate in departmental enquiry and permitted it to proceed exparte. 9. Even after exparte enquiry, Disciplinary Authority has followed proper procedure before inflicting punishment. There is no challenge to this part of departmental enquiry. 10. The order of compulsory retirement is dated 08.12.2001 and OA No. 2044 of 2002 filed challenging it, is rejected by CAT by order dated 24th January, 2004. It appears that Summary Criminal Case No. 1657 of 2000 was then pending. This case has been decided on 12.11.2007 by JMFC (Railways), Nagpur. Judgment shows that there total five witnesses were examined by State Government to prove the charge. Eye witness Shri T.K. Mukherjee nowhere figures there as witness. The consideration of evidence also reveals that witnesses turned hostile. At the end, after considering this evidence, trial Court found that there was no incriminating evidence against petitioner in said criminal trial. 11. Criminal Court was required to find out whether there was any legal material on record to implicate petitioner. These technical requirements of law of evidence are not attracted in departmental enquiry. Trial Court found that there was no “incriminating” material and, therefore, proceeded to give benefit of doubt. This finding by trial Court, therefore, does not mean that the finding recorded by Enquiry Officer becomes redundant. Enquiry Officer has independently looked into material produced before him and consideration by him is not circumscribed by technical requirement of law of evidence. Not only this, he has also looked into evidence of eye witness Shri T.K. Mukherjee. It cannot, therefore, be said that very same material and evidence has been considered by Enquiry Officer as also by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class. 12. In judgment in the case of G.M. Tank .v. State of Gujarat and others (cited supra), the charge in departmental enquiry was in relation to acquisition of movable and immovable properties illegally. This was also charge in criminal prosecution under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Thus before criminal Court, very same charge has been looked into and consideration by Hon'ble Supreme Court reveals that very same evidence has been evaluated by criminal Court. This was also charge in criminal prosecution under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Thus before criminal Court, very same charge has been looked into and consideration by Hon'ble Supreme Court reveals that very same evidence has been evaluated by criminal Court. Thus, a competent criminal Court, after considering evidence which was also earlier looked into by Enquiry Officer, came to conclusion that the offence of acquisition of movable and immovable properties disproportionate to known sources of income was not established. Because of this specific finding of criminal Court, the Hon'ble Apex Court found that inconsistent finding of Enquiry Officer could not have been relied upon. 13. As already noted supra, here though the findings of Enquiry Officer and the learned JMFC are inconsonant with each other, the same cannot be seen as repugnant. The Enquiry Officer has looked into additional evidence of eye witness Shri T.K. Mukherjee and learned JMFC did not have that advantage. 14. As we have found that the acquittal by criminal Court on 12.11.2007 has got no impact or bearing on punishment, it is really not necessary for us to comment upon the letter of Railway Board dated 29.04.1985. That letter is attracted only when the employer decides to reinstate employee after his acquittal. The question looked into is about the treatment to be extended to period of suspension. It, therefore, applies when after acquittal, employee is reinstated and hence period of suspension pending enquiry or period during which he was out of employment, needs to be regularized. Same, therefore, guides Railway Officer (Disciplinary Authority) as to how such period needs to be treated. For this purpose, only letter points out that normally no distinction should be made in cases of acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt and honourable acquittal. The letter also clarifies that decision needs to be taken on case to case basis. 15. The Rules applicable in such matters like Disciplinary and Appeal Rules of Railways framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India are not pointed out. Rules may give some discretion to Disciplinary Authority in the matter. Letter may does not take away that discretion but only help authority in its use or exercise. Even otherwise, this letter does not mean that every acquitted employee needs to be reinstated. 16. In the light of above discussion, we find no jurisdictional error or perversity in the order of CAT. Letter may does not take away that discretion but only help authority in its use or exercise. Even otherwise, this letter does not mean that every acquitted employee needs to be reinstated. 16. In the light of above discussion, we find no jurisdictional error or perversity in the order of CAT. No case is made out. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.