JUDGMENT : The petitioner while serving in TSR as Rifleman (GD) of C Coy in the 7th Bn., for the alleged misconduct which he committed in discharge of his duties, was served with a memorandum along with the article of charges along with statement of imputation of misconduct and misbehavior (Annexure-I & II) u/R14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification Central and Appeal) Rules, 1965, read with Rule40 of the TSR (DCSC etc.) Rules, 1985. 2. The departmental inquiry was conducted against the delinquent petitioner in terms of the provision of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 and the inquiry officer finally submitted his report dt. 17th March, 2006 (Annexure-2). In the course of enquiry, the inquiry officer recorded the statement of PW-S.I, Shri. Manindra Debnath, PW-Shri. Dhirendra Debnath, PW-Sub. Bhanu Debnath, PW-Rfn. Rakesh Roy, PW-Nk. Kashab Debnath, PW-Shri Ratan Das, PW-Rfn. Behru Singh Nigwal and PW-Rfn. Pawan Kumar and finally held charge No. 5 proved against the delinquent petitioner. The copy of the enquiry report was sent to the petitioner vide office memo dt. 6th February, 2007 with an opportunity of making submission on the report of enquiry, if so desired. 3. In compliance thereof, written submission was made by the delinquent petitioner on 16th February, 2007 and after due consideration of his written objection, submitted in reference to the report of enquiry furnished to him, the disciplinary authority agreed with the finding recorded by the inquiry officer in his report and took note of the judgment of the criminal court in which he was held guilty and convicted dt. 28th November, 2006 and finally inflicted penalty of dismissal from service under its order dt. 24th March, 2007 which came to be challenged by the delinquent petitioner in departmental appeal and that came to be dismissed vide order dt. 11th December, 2007 and further appeal that came to be rejected on 14th February, 2008 (Annexure-6). Further challenge before the revisional authority with inordinate delay and that was rejected vide order dt. 27th September, 2014. The article of charge No. 5 which was proved by the inquiry officer finally confirmed by the disciplinary/revisional authority. 4. For the alleged criminal misconduct committed by the petitioner in discharge of duties on a criminal complaint FIR was registered against him at Jirania P.S. Case No. 50 of 2004 under Sec. 380/411 of IPC and u/Sec. 25(1)(a) of Arms. Act. 4. For the alleged criminal misconduct committed by the petitioner in discharge of duties on a criminal complaint FIR was registered against him at Jirania P.S. Case No. 50 of 2004 under Sec. 380/411 of IPC and u/Sec. 25(1)(a) of Arms. Act. After due trial the petitioner was held guilty and convicted u/S. 411 and u/Sec. 25(1) (a) of the Arms Act and sentence vide judgment dt. 28th November, 2006 passed by the Ld. Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate. Against the judgment of conviction and sentence dt. 28th November, 2006, the convict appellant preferred criminal appeal No. 55(4) of 2006 and the court of appeal set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence & acquitted the petitioner vide judgment dt. 19th May, 2007 and further appeal preferred by the prosecution against the order of acquittal, came to be dismissed by this Court in Crl. Appeal No. 70 of 2008/ vide judgment dt. 2nd June, 2014. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that for the self same allegation, departmental inquiry and a criminal case was instituted against him based on the same set of facts and evidence and after he has been finally acquitted in the criminal case instituted against him. The order of penalty which has been inflicted by the disciplinary authority dt. 24.03.2007, in the changed facts & circumstance is not sustainable deservers to be set aside and he may be reinstated in service and in support of submission, counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in G. M. Tank v. State of Gujarat & Others, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 446 , Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Another, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 and AIR (2003) SC 4076. 6. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the disciplinary authority was persuaded with the judgment of conviction and sentence of a criminal court passed by the Ld. Trial Judge dt. 28th November, 2006 but that has been set aside in appeal preferred by the delinquent petitioner granting him hon’ble acquittal vide judgment dt. 19th May, 2007 at least the finding which has been recorded holding the petitioner guilty of charge No. 5 and passing the order of penalty of dismissal, in the given change circumstances, does not hold good and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. 19th May, 2007 at least the finding which has been recorded holding the petitioner guilty of charge No. 5 and passing the order of penalty of dismissal, in the given change circumstances, does not hold good and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents and it has been averred that the departmental enquiry was conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Disciplinary Rule, 1965 and later acquittal in a criminal case will not absolve the petitioner from the misconduct being committed by him in discharge of his official duty and the finding of the inquiry officer in holding the petitioner guilty in reference to charge No. 5 is based on the evidence which has been recorded in the course of the disciplinary inquiry and unless there is any perversity in the finding which has been recorded by the inquiry officer, mere acquittal will not come to rescue of the petitioner for quashing the penalty of dismissal inflicted upon him. 8. Counsel for the respondents further submits that it is not the case of the petitioner delinquent that a fair opportunity of hearing has not been afforded during the course of inquiry or there was a violation of the principles of natural justice or the procedure prescribed under the Rules, 1965 has not been followed and the departmental inquiry based on the set of evidence which was recorded of the departmental witnesses, the fate of the criminal case may not hold any relevance for interference in the disciplinary inquiry which was independently held under Rules, 1965 and in support of submission, counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in Deputy Inspector General of Police v. S. Samuthiram, reported in (2013) 1 SCC 598 , State of West Bengal & Others v. Sankar Ghosh, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 610 and State Road Transport Corporation v. M. G. Vittal Rao, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 442 . 9. I have heard counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the material available on record. 10. 9. I have heard counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the material available on record. 10. The legal proposition has now been settled by the consistence judgments of the Apex Court that the standard of proof in both the proceedings is quite different in a judicial enquiry the charge has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt at the same time in the departmental proceedings the allegation has to be proved on the preponderance of probabilities and acquittal of an employee in a criminal case cannot be made the basis of taking away the effect of departmental proceedings, nor such an action of the department be termed as double jeopardy as held by the Apex Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Another, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 based on the rules of universal application, it is further held that facts, charges and nature of evidence, etc. involved in an individual case would determine as to whether decision of acquittal would have any bearing on the findings recorded in the domestic enquiry. 11. I have at first deal with the departmental proceedings initiated against the delinquent petitioner in brief. The memorandum along with the statement of article of charges and statement of imputation of misconduct of misbehavior in support of each article of charge in the form of Annexure-I & II was served upon the petitioner dt. 5th March, 2005 and article of charge No. 5 finally proved against the petitioner as relevant for the purpose are extracted hereunder: Article of Charge No. V Rfn. Rafik Uddin is charged for gross misconduct in that while not on duty on 09.09.2004 at about 1725 hrs, he was found with illegal possession of 36 live rounds loaded in the 02(two) SLR Magazines at Jirania College Chowmohani. These all facts are prejudicial to good order and discipline of the Rifles and attract the provision of 12(1) of Tripura State Rifles Act, 1983.” 12. After the inquiry officer was appointed in the course of enquiry, the statement of departmental witnesses namely, S.I Shri Manindra Debnath, Shri Dhirendra Debnath, Shri Sub. Bhanu Debnath, Rfn. Rakesh Roy, Nk. Kasab Debnath, Rfn. Ratan Das, Rfn. Behru Singh Nigwal and Rfn. After the inquiry officer was appointed in the course of enquiry, the statement of departmental witnesses namely, S.I Shri Manindra Debnath, Shri Dhirendra Debnath, Shri Sub. Bhanu Debnath, Rfn. Rakesh Roy, Nk. Kasab Debnath, Rfn. Ratan Das, Rfn. Behru Singh Nigwal and Rfn. Pawan Kumar was recorded and it came to be established that he was in illegal possession of 36 live rounds loaded in the 02(two) SLR Magazines which he was not officially authorized to carry and charge No. 5 stands proved against the delinquent petitioner as revealed from the enquiry report dt. 17th March, 2006 and he was unable to show any valid document for holding possession of live ammunition and magazines of SLR. 13. A copy of the enquiry report was served upon the delinquent petitioner on 6th February, 2007 with an opportunity to make his submission on the report of inquiry as desired. In furtherance thereof, submitted written objection dt. 16th February, 2007 which came to be considered by disciplinary authority and assigning reasons in upholding the finding recorded by the inquiry officer in his report hold him guilty of charge No. 5 and finally punished him with a penalty of dismissal from service. 14. Although, the reference has been made of the judicial pronouncement by the disciplinary authority in its order dt. 24th March, 2007 but it may be noticed that the allegation in reference to the article of charge No. 5 was independently examined based on the evidence which was produced during the course of domestic enquiry the guilt was recorded and the departmental appeal/revision preferred by the petitioner at a later point of time, came to be dismissed vide orders dt. 11th December, 2007, 14th February, 2008 and 27th September, 2014 respectively. 15. A separate criminal complaint was instituted against the delinquent petitioner that at about 5.00 am on 04.09.2004 two magazines along with 40 rounds of ammunitions were alleged to have been missing from the custody of Rfn. Rakesh Roy and those missing articles were recovered from the petitioner, who was arrested and interrogated for committing offence and for which an FIR was registered against him u/Sec. 411 and 25(1) (a) of the Arms Act. 16. Rakesh Roy and those missing articles were recovered from the petitioner, who was arrested and interrogated for committing offence and for which an FIR was registered against him u/Sec. 411 and 25(1) (a) of the Arms Act. 16. In the criminal case, few of the witnesses examined in the departmental enquiry were the prosecution’s witnesses but the finding finally recorded by the court of appeal in acquitting the petitioner in a criminal trial that the prosecution failed to detail out the items allegedly recovered or items allegedly stolen and also the fact that the prosecution failed to establish the recovery as alleged as per the strict provisions of law and giving him the benefit of doubt, the learned court of appeal granted him acquittal under judgment dt. 19th May, 2007 and that came to be confirmed on dismissal of an appeal preferred by the prosecution dt. 2nd June, 2014 by this Court. 17. It has been settled by the Apex Court in Southern Railway Officers Assn. v. Union of India, reported in (2009) 9 SCC 24 that acquittal in a criminal case by itself cannot be a ground for interfering with an order of punishment imposed during the course of disciplinary proceedings and on the basis of finding which has been recorded in the disciplinary enquiry punishment can be inflected upon the delinquent officer, even if he had been acquitted of the criminal charge. 18. It is the settled proposition that the purpose of departmental enquiry is to enquire into the truth of the charges leveled against the Govt. 18. It is the settled proposition that the purpose of departmental enquiry is to enquire into the truth of the charges leveled against the Govt. servant for alleged disobedience, neglect of duty, remissness in discharge of duty, misconduct or misbehavior done by the alleged person in the capacity of being public servant as such, if the charges are sustained the delinquent may be punished depending on gravity of offence/misconduct and the only purpose to hold domestic enquiry is to help the punishing authority to come to a definite conclusion regarding guilt of the delinquent and the disciplinary proceedings being quasi judicial in nature, technical rule of criminal trial do not apply in such cases and based on principles of preponderance of probabilities the charge could be held proved in the disciplinary enquiry, subject to providing him a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges and principles of natural justice is also be kept in mind at all stages during the departmental proceedings, which is in the instant case has gainfully complied with but in the criminal trial the charge has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. 19. The question of considering reinstatement after decision of acquittal or discharge by a competent criminal court may arise only if the dismissal from services was based on conviction by the criminal court in view of the provisions of Art. 311(2) (b) of the Constitution of India or any analogous provisions if any statutory rules applicable in a case. In a case where disciplinary enquiry has been held independently regardless to the criminal proceedings, acquittal in the judicial proceedings may be of no assistance/help to the delinquent, on the contrary, if the person stood acquitted in a judicial enquiry, still domestic enquiry can be held and the reason being that standard of proof required in a domestic enquiry and that in a criminal case are altogether different as has been considered by the Apex Court in State Road Transport Corporation v. M. G. Vittal Rao, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 442 where it has been stated as under: “24. Thus, there can be no doubt regarding the settled legal proposition that as the standard of proof in both the proceedings is quite different, and the termination is not based on mere conviction of an employee in a criminal case, the acquittal of the employee in criminal case cannot be the basis of taking away the effect of departmental proceedings. Nor can such an action of the department be termed as double jeopardy. The judgment of this Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony does not lay down the law of universal application. Facts, charges and nature of evidence, etc. involved in an individual case would determine as to whether decision of acquittal would have any bearing on the findings recorded in the domestic enquiry.” 20. In the absence of any provision in the service rules for reinstatement, if an employee is acquitted by a criminal court, no right is conferred on the employee to claim any benefit including reinstatement and reason is obvious that the standard of proof required for holding a person guilty by a criminal court and the enquiry conducted by way of disciplinary proceedings 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. At the same time strict burden of proof required to establish guilt is not required in a disciplinary proceedings and preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. 21. Even after acquittal in a criminal case, departmental proceedings as being canvassed by the Apex Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Another, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 . For purpose of reference the relevant part is extracted hereunder: “19. The propositions which the petitioner wanted to canvass placing reliance on the judgment in Capt. M. Paul Anthony case read as follows: (i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. For purpose of reference the relevant part is extracted hereunder: “19. The propositions which the petitioner wanted to canvass placing reliance on the judgment in Capt. M. Paul Anthony case read as follows: (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.” 22. In the instant case, the disciplinary enquiry was independently held and based on the statement of witness recorded in the course of enquiry and the documentary evidence came on record, the finding of guilt was recorded by the inquiry officer in confirmation by the disciplinary authority holding him guilty and it is not the case of the petitioner that fair opportunity of hearing was not afforded to him or there was a violation of principles of natural justice or compliance of the procedure prescribed under the Rules, 1965 has not been followed. As this Court is not sitting in the court of appeal and if there is no fault in the decision making process which has been adopted by the respondents in the course of enquiry based on the piece of evidence, the charge No. 5 held proved against him indeed is a gross misconduct which has been made a basis of inflicting penalty of dismissal upon the petitioner delinquent, mere acquittal in the criminal case may not be of any assistance to the petitioner in absolving from the misconduct which has been committed by him in discharge of official duties. 23. I find no manifest error or procedural defect or perversity in the finding which has been recorded during the course of disciplinary proceedings which may call for interference of this Court inflicted punishment on the delinquent petitioner and that acquittal in the criminal proceedings by the court of appeal may not be of any assistance to the petitioner in seeking reinstatement in the given facts and circumstances of this case, as prayed for. Consequently, the writ petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed. No cost.