JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner by way of this writ petition assails the order dated 23.08.1999 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the order dated 13.04.2000 passed by the Appellate Authority and the enquiry proceedings initiated against him. By the aforesaid order of punishment he has been punished with removal from service and also directed to repay amount of Rs.5,19,000/- to the Bank. The petitioner was working as a Branch Manager with the Hadoti Kshetriya Gramin Bank. An FIR was lodged by the Management wherein charges were levelled with the petitioner on having embezzled amount of the Bank and withdrawing amount from the account holders and utilizing the same treating as a loan. He was suspended vide order dated 14.06.1996 and with regard to the same charges, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet vide memorandum dated 31.08.1996 alleging financial irregularities committed by him resulting embezzlement and having acted deterioration interest of the Bank. In all, 12 charges were levelled relating to the various accounts hold by the different account holders and allegation of the petitioner having embezzled amount from their accounts. The charge sheet was issued under the Rules governing the Regional Rural Banks Rules, 1983. In relation to the said charge sheet, the petitioner initiated several proceedings seeking injunction from conducting of departmental enquriy with regard to the charges as there was a criminal case registered in relation to the same charges. An interim order was passed by the concerned Civil Court and ultimately a revision petition preferred before this High Court, the Bank was allowed to proceed with the enquiry. Whereafter enquiry officer who has already been appointed in December, 1997 started the enquiry when called upon the petitioner to submit his reply on 26.10.1998. The petitioner presented himself before the Enquiry Officer requested that he may be given time to obtain necessary documents and requested for adjournment to the enquiry proceedings. At the request of the petitioner as well as the Presenting Officer the next date was fixed 31.10.1998 and the petitioner made a request for providing him documents. Enquiry Officer directed the Presenting Officer to make available the documents if a specific application is moved for the said purpose. On the next date i.e. 05.11.1998 fixed by the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner delinquent did not appear and moved an application of seeking adjournment on the ground of illness. Enquiry Officer directed the Presenting Officer to make available the documents if a specific application is moved for the said purpose. On the next date i.e. 05.11.1998 fixed by the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner delinquent did not appear and moved an application of seeking adjournment on the ground of illness. However, at the request made by the Presenting Officer, the Enquiry Officer made the enquiry exparte ultimately on 27.10.1999. The Enquiry Officer closed the enquiry proceeding and submitted his enquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority who made it available to the petitioner for his comments. The petitioner was given personal hearing and thereafter the Disciplinary Authority passed an order on 23.08.1999 holding the petitioner guilty of all the charges and punished the petitioner of removal from service for each charge. An appeal was preferred which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 13.04.2000. In the criminal case, the petitioner was acquitted by the Court vide order dated 01.11.2000. A revision petition No.98/2001 was preferred by the Bank against the acquittal before this Court which was dismissed vide order dated 21.01.2008. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not have been made to face departmental proceedings in regard to the same charges for which criminal case was registered against him. It is his submission that the respondents ought to have restrained themselves from conducting the enquiry. Learned counsel further submits that once the petitioner acquitted for the self same charges, he cannot be held to be guilty in the departmental proceedings. Learned counsel further submits that without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions in the departmental enquiry conducted by the respondents, the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity to defend his case as the documents were not made available to him. It is his further submission that the Enquiry Officer has submitted his enquiry report holding the petitioner guilty of charges without there being any evidence recorded by him. It is submitted that the Enquiry Officer has relied upon the statements recorded during preliminary enquiry for holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. None of the account holders were called upon to give their statement in support of the allegations levelled against the petitioner. None of the documents produced during the enquiry were ever proved by any person. It is submitted that the Enquiry Officer has relied upon the statements recorded during preliminary enquiry for holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. None of the account holders were called upon to give their statement in support of the allegations levelled against the petitioner. None of the documents produced during the enquiry were ever proved by any person. Learned counsel further submits that exparte proceedings were wrongfully undertaken against the petitioner, he was regularly attending the enquiry but on account of illness and advised by Doctor to remain on rest for one month, he had informed the Enquiry Officer to adjourn the proceedings accordingly. The medical certificate was also placed before the Enquiry Officer but it his submission that the Enquiry Officer proceeded at the behest of the Presenting Officer and without recording any further evidence closed the enquiry proceedings and submitted the enquiry report relying upon the documents which were available before him. In the circumstances, learned counsel submits that the Disciplinary Authority ought to have examined his submissions and the Disciplinary Authority did not deal with his submissions and passed the order of removal. It is also his submission that the Appellate Authority has failed to take notice of his arguments and has passed the order in mechanical manner. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgments passed by the Apex Court and this Court in the cases of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Versus Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. And Another (1999) 3 SCC 679 , G.M. Tank Versus State of Gujrat & Anr. 2006 AIR SCW 2709, S. Bhaskar Reddy And Anr. Versus Superintendent of Police And Anr. 2015 (2) SCC 365 , Santosh Kumar Bhatnagar Vs. Jaipur Nagaur Aanchalik Gramin Bank & Anr. 2001 (3) RLR 212 and Mangal Chand Sain Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. 2001 (2) RLR 663 , in support of his submissions. 3. Per contra learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner has attempted one way or the other to delay the enquiry proceedings and it is only after the order having been passed by the High Court in revision petition, that the enquiry proceedings could be further proceeded with. 3. Per contra learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner has attempted one way or the other to delay the enquiry proceedings and it is only after the order having been passed by the High Court in revision petition, that the enquiry proceedings could be further proceeded with. Learned counsel submits that during the enquiry proceedings, the petitioner himself chose not to appear on the date fixed by the Enquiry Officer and therefore taking into consideration that even on the earlier dates, the petitioner had been always seeking adjournment on the ground of non-availability of documents, the Enquiry Officer rightly proceeded exparte against the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the documents could have been made available to the petitioner if he moved any application giving the specific details of the documents which he really wanted however no such application was moved. Enquiry Officer while holding exparte proceedings against the petitioner and in this manner, it cannot be said that the Enquiry Officer has committed any fault in conducting enquiry exparte. Learned counsel further submits that so far as evidence is concerned, since documents were also on record, they were examined and the Enquiry Officer has proceeded to submit his report accordingly. The Disciplinary Authority has taken into consideration the enquiry report and on each charge the petitioner has been held guilty by the Enquiry Officer. It is submitted that the Disciplinary Authority has noticed that the petitioner has not produced any evidence to dispute the charges and therefore the punishment of removal has been rightly passed. Learned counsel submits that the punishment cannot be said to be in any manner disproportionate. Learned counsel has relied on judgments of the Apex Court in (1996) 9 SCC 69 Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regl. Manager & Ors. Vs. Nikunja Bihari Pareek, (2003) 4 SCC 364 CMD, United Commercial Bank and ors. Vs. P.C. Kakkar, on the aspect of quantum of punishment. Learned counsel has also relied on (2009) 15 SCC 260 Chairaman-Cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and Anr. vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri and Ors., to submit that this Court has a limited scope of judicial review in departmental enquiry. He also relied on (2010) 13 SCC 255 Natwar Singh Vs. Vs. P.C. Kakkar, on the aspect of quantum of punishment. Learned counsel has also relied on (2009) 15 SCC 260 Chairaman-Cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and Anr. vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri and Ors., to submit that this Court has a limited scope of judicial review in departmental enquiry. He also relied on (2010) 13 SCC 255 Natwar Singh Vs. Director of Enforcement and Anr., to submit that non compliance of principles of natural justice should cause prejudice only when it is seen that the conduct of the delinquent is not such which is causing road blocks. He relies on (2005) 10 SCC 471 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited & Ors. Versus Sarvesh Berry , to submit that departmental enquiry in any manner presumption can be done parallelly. He relies on (1997) (2) SCC 699 Depot Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation Versus Mohd. Yousuf Miya & Ors., it has been held that the departmental enquiry in criminal prosecution which too itself separate entities and enquiry can be conducted as the review of the examining the evidence is different. He further submits that the acquittal in criminal case would have no impact on departmental enquiry has held in (2011) (9) SCC 94 Samar Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. and (1996) 6 SCC 417 State of Rajasthan Versus B.K. Meena & Ors. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. The three issues which this Court need to be examined in the present facts of the case are that, firstly whether it was necessary for the respondents to have awaited the result of the criminal case, whether the charges levelled against the petitioner were identical to the charge levelled against the petitioner in departmental proceedings. 5. The three issues which this Court need to be examined in the present facts of the case are that, firstly whether it was necessary for the respondents to have awaited the result of the criminal case, whether the charges levelled against the petitioner were identical to the charge levelled against the petitioner in departmental proceedings. In view of this Court, once the petitioner himself had taken up the said issue before the Civil court and the matter travelled upto the Rajasthan High Court in S.B.C.W.P. No.3328/1999, the issue does not require to be examined afresh, the High Court vide its judgment dated 08.07.1999 dismissed the revision petition moved by the petitioner and allowed the respondents to conduct an enquiry, thus it cannot be said that the respondents have wrongfully conducted the enquiry in relation to the charge sheet while the criminal case was pending even otherwise it is a settled law now that while criminal case may be pending the employer has a right to continue with the departmental proceedings which are based on preponderance of evidence. The law even in Capt. M. Paul Anthony Versus Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. And Another (supra) relied upon by counsel for the petitioner, the Apex Court has held as under:- “22. The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are: (i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. (ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. (iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge sheet. (iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the Departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. (v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, administration may get rid of him at the earliest.” Keeping in view of the aforesaid, the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner fails on this aspect. The second question which this court has to examine is the impact of the acquittal in the criminal case. The charges have been levelled against the petitioner namely 12 different charges relate to 12 different account holders and in the criminal case also the concerned Court was dealing with the same allegations. The charge levelled against the petitioner was of having embezzled the amount. The account holders have been examined in the criminal case and none of them have supported the version of the Bank meaning thereby the petitioner has been ultimately acquitted of all the charges of embezzlement holding that there was no proof that the petitioner has committed embezzlement. It is a case of honourable acquittal, it is not that the Court was giving the benefit of doubt to the petitioner. A revision petition preferred by the Bank also stood dismissed. Keeping in view the said circumstances, if we examine the method and manner in which the petitioner has been punished in the departmental proceedings, we find that none of the account holders were examined by the Enquiry Officer. No document was proved before the Enquiry Officer, only the statement of one cashier was recorded who has not made any statement as against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer has also not relied upon his conclusions on the basis of the statement of the witness who was examined during the course of enquiry. He has relied on the statements recorded during the preliminary enquiry, while the petitioner was not confronted with the preliminary enquiry report. The Enquiry Officer has also not relied upon his conclusions on the basis of the statement of the witness who was examined during the course of enquiry. He has relied on the statements recorded during the preliminary enquiry, while the petitioner was not confronted with the preliminary enquiry report. No witness has come on behalf of the Bank to prove the preliminary enquiry. In the circumstances, relying upon the statements made during preliminary enquiry by the Enquiry Officer was unjustified. Such report has been relied upon by the Disciplinary Authority without discussing the said aspect, the Disciplinary Authority has held the petitioner guilty of the charges also on the ground that the petitioner has not brought any evidence to disprove the charges. Thus, the onus has been shifted on the delinquent by the Disciplinary Authority. 6. In the circumstances, this Court finds that it is a case of no evidence. This Court is satisfied that the enquiry proceedings have been conducted without there being any evidence recorded. The Apex Court in the case of Kuldeep Singh Versus Commissioner of Police, 1999 (2) SCC 10 . In a recent judgment Central Industrial Security Force & Ors. Versus Abrar Ali, AIR 2017 SC 200 , the Apex Court has laid down that the circumstances where High Court may interfere in departmental proceedings. One of the circumstance when this Court can interfere with a departmental enquiry is when the same is based on no evidence. Keeping in view that the petitioner was acquitted by the competent Court where the evidence was recorded and keeping in view that in the departmental enquiry no evidence was recorded. The order of holding petitioner guilty by the Disciplinary Authority is held to be based on perverse findings of Equiry Officer. 7. In S. Bhaskar Reddy And Anr. Versus Superintendent of Police And Anr. (supra), the Apex Court was examining both the alternative arguments, firstly, with regard to the validity of the departmental proceedings and secondly on the ground that the trial court had acquitted the concerned delinquent in the criminal case. In that case, the departmental proceedings were concluded and punishment of dismissal was awarded on 27.03.2007 while acquittal from the same set of charges was awarded by the Sessions Judge on 25.06.2007 i.e. subsequent to the dismissal order. In that case, the departmental proceedings were concluded and punishment of dismissal was awarded on 27.03.2007 while acquittal from the same set of charges was awarded by the Sessions Judge on 25.06.2007 i.e. subsequent to the dismissal order. The Apex Court in the said case held that the departmental enquiry proceedings were not vitiated in any manner. However, it observed that as there is a honourable acquittal, the High Court was required to examine the effect of the honourable acquittal, accordingly the order of dismissal was set-aside. However, since the departmental enquiry was held to be not vitiated, the punishment of dismissal was converted to that of compulsory retirement. 8. In the present case taking cue from the aforesaid case, this Court finds that Enquiry Officer in the present departmental proceedings has relied upon the statements recorded during preliminary enquiry and the witnesses were not called upon nor their statements were recorded by it. In the case of M.V. Bijlani Versus Union of India And Others (2006) 5 SCC 88 , the Apex Court while noticing the limited scope of judicial review held as under:- “25. It is true that the jurisdiction of the court in judicial review is limited. Disciplinary proceedings, however, being quasi-criminal in nature, there should be some evidence to prove the charge. Although the charges in a departmental proceedings are not required to be proved like a criminal trial, i.e., beyond all reasonable doubt, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the Enquiry Officer performs a quasijudicial function, who upon analysing the documents must arrive at a conclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability to prove the charges on the basis of materials on record. While doing so, he cannot take into consideration any irrelevant fact. He cannot refuse to consider the relevant facts. He cannot shift the burden of proof. He cannot reject the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. He cannot enquire into the allegations with which the delinquent officer had not been charged with.” 9. In (2008) 3 SCC 484 , Moni Shankar Versus Union of India And Another, the Apex Court taking into consideration the provisions contained in the Rules proceeded to held the departmental proceedings conducted contrary to the department’s circular, and it observed as under:- “17. The departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial one. In (2008) 3 SCC 484 , Moni Shankar Versus Union of India And Another, the Apex Court taking into consideration the provisions contained in the Rules proceeded to held the departmental proceedings conducted contrary to the department’s circular, and it observed as under:- “17. The departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial one. Although the provisions of the Evidence Act are not applicable in the said proceeding, principles of natural justice are required to be complied with. The Court exercising power of judicial review are entitled to consider as to whether while inferring commission of misconduct on the part of a delinquent officer relevant piece of evidence has been taken into consideration and irrelevant facts have been excluded there from. Inference on facts must be based on evidence which meet the requirements of legal principles. The Tribunal was, thus, entitled to arrive at its own conclusion on the premise that the evidence adduced by the department, even if it is taken on its face value to be correct in its entirety, meet the requirements of burden of proof, namely-preponderance of probability. If on such evidences, the test of the doctrine of proportionality has not been satisfied, the Tribunal was within its domain to interfere. We must place on record that the doctrine of unreasonableness is giving way to the doctrine of proportionality.(See State of U.P. v. Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava (2006) 3 SCC 276 and Coimbatore District Central Coop. Bank v. Employees Assn. (2007) 4 SCC 669 . 10. In Krushnakant B. Parmar vs. Union of India and Ors. 2012 (3) SCC 178 , the Apex Court while following the judgment of M.V Bijlani (supra) it was held that the onus of proof is on the department. 11. In Kuldeep Singh Versus Commissioner of Police (supra), it was held that enquiry proceedings were held to be initiated as there was no evidence as the findings recorded in the domestic enquiry is based on no evidence. 12. In Roop Singh Negi Versus Punjab National Bank & Ors. 11. In Kuldeep Singh Versus Commissioner of Police (supra), it was held that enquiry proceedings were held to be initiated as there was no evidence as the findings recorded in the domestic enquiry is based on no evidence. 12. In Roop Singh Negi Versus Punjab National Bank & Ors. (2009) 2 SCC 570 , while discussing the entire law as held in Sawai Singh Versus State of Rajasthan, (1986) 3 SCC 454 and in Union of India Versus H.C. Goel, AIR 1964 SC 364 , it has held that if the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority do not give reasons the orders passed by them are as of civil consequences cannot be upheld, which reads as under:- “14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges leveled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the Investigating Officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence. 15. We have noticed hereinbefore that the only basic evidence whereupon reliance has been placed by the enquiry officer was the purported confession made by the appellant before the police. According to the appellant, he was forced to sign on the said confession, as he was tortured in the police station. The appellant being an employee of the Bank, the said confession should have been proved. Some evidence should have been brought on record to show that he had indulged in stealing the bank draft book. Admittedly, there was no direct evidence. Even there was no indirect evidence. The tenor of the report demonstrates that the enquiry officer had made up his mind to find him guilty as otherwise he would not have proceeded on the basis that the offence was committed in such a manner that no evidence was left.” 13. Admittedly, there was no direct evidence. Even there was no indirect evidence. The tenor of the report demonstrates that the enquiry officer had made up his mind to find him guilty as otherwise he would not have proceeded on the basis that the offence was committed in such a manner that no evidence was left.” 13. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds that the proceedings conducted by the respondents in a wrongful manner without recording evidence and putting the onus on the concerned delinquent-employee, keeping in view the law as noticed hereinabove the enquiry proceedings cannot be upheld. Judgments cited by counsel for the respondents have no application in the facts and circumstances as stated hereinabove. Each case is to be decided on its own facts. Suffices it to state that it would have no application to the facts of the present case. 14. Once this Court reaches to the aforesaid conclusion and independently the petitioner has already been acquitted honourably by competent Court of law, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in G.M. Tank Versus State of Gujrat & Anr. (supra) no purpose would be served to again direct the respondents to conduct the proceedings afresh. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 23.08.1999 and 13.04.2000 are quashed and set-aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to reinstatement with all consequential benefits. 15. The writ petition is allowed.