JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order dated 27.06.2018 (Annexure 6) issued by Chairman-cum-Managing Director (Disciplinary Authority) of the respondent-company, whereby and whereunder, the application, filed by the petitioner seeking dropping of the Departmental Proceeding in view of his acquittal in the criminal case was rejected. Further prayer has been made for dropping the Departmental Proceeding as against the petitioner in view of the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case based on same set of facts and similar charges. 2. The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that the petitioner is presently working as Senior Manager/HOD-Geology at BCCL, Koyla Bhawan, Dhanbad. When the petitioner was employed as a Superintending Geologist in Central Mine Planning & Design Institute Limited (in short ‘CMPDIL’), he along with two other members were deputed for conducting Coal Stock Measurement at different Collieries of MCL, Talcher. During the said period, they were to take the measurement of the Coal Stock. While the petitioner and other members were sitting in Jagannath Guest House, MCL, on 08.08.2009, the CBI raided Room No.3 (Godavari), which was occupied by the petitioner and recovered cash of Rs. 50,000/-. As per the CBI, out of the said amount Rs. 29,550/- was disproportionate to his known source of income. The case of the CBI was that he was given an advance of Rs.19,000/- as TA on 07.07.2009 and besides this, he had withdrawn Rs. 3,000/- from ATM on 14.07.2009 and 26.07.2009 and therefore, total income comes to Rs.22,000/- and total expenditure was calculated at Rs. 1550/- i.e. at the rate of Rs. 50/- per day for the period from 09.07.2009 to 08.08.2009 and accordingly, it was alleged that the petitioner was possessing cash disproportionate to his assets to the tune of Rs. 29,550/-. On the basis of the said allegation, a criminal case being R.C. 20(A)/2009 was instituted for an offence under Section 13 (2), 13 (1) (d) and 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is further the case of the petitioner that on similar allegations, the respondent-company also initiated a Departmental Enquiry after almost eight years of the occurrence, by issuing a Memorandum of Charge on 10/14.08.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a detailed show cause, admitting the recovery of Rs. 50,000/- and further explained that he had withdrawn Rs. It is further the case of the petitioner that on similar allegations, the respondent-company also initiated a Departmental Enquiry after almost eight years of the occurrence, by issuing a Memorandum of Charge on 10/14.08.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a detailed show cause, admitting the recovery of Rs. 50,000/- and further explained that he had withdrawn Rs. 1.00 lakh during the said period through his ATM from CBI, Jagiriti Vihar Branch, MCL, Kurla. In the meantime, the CBI also submitted a charge-sheet against the petitioner for the self same charges. 3. It is further the case of the petitioner that he faced trial and examined as DW-1 and he admitted the recovery of cash, explained the same and also produced all documents and evidence in support of his case. The learned Special Judge, Bhubneshwar, vide Judgment dated 11.05.2018 acquitted the petitioner honourably and also directed to return the recovered amount of Rs. 50,000/-. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed an application for dropping the Departmental Proceeding in view of the fact that the criminal case and Departmental Proceeding is based on the self same set of facts, evidence and similar charges and in the criminal case, the petitioner has proved his innocence and accordingly, he has been honourably acquitted. However, the respondent-authority vide order dated 27.06.2018 rejected the representation of the petitioner on the ground that departmental proceeding and criminal trial are entirely different and independent to each other and in criminal trial, the charges are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubts, whereas the departmental enquiry is based on preponderance of probability. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court. 4. Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argues that the action of the respondent is wholly illegal, unjustified and bad in law. Learned counsel further argues that criminal case and Departmental Proceeding are based on similar charges and same set of facts and as the petitioner has been honourably acquitted in the criminal case, the departmental proceeding ought to have been dropped and as such, no useful purpose would be serve by holding the departmental proceeding to continue. Learned counsel further argues that criminal case and Departmental Proceeding are based on similar charges and same set of facts and as the petitioner has been honourably acquitted in the criminal case, the departmental proceeding ought to have been dropped and as such, no useful purpose would be serve by holding the departmental proceeding to continue. Learned counsel further argues that the impugned order has been passed without any application of mind, ignoring the Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) and Circular of Coal India Limited dated 27th September, 2016, which provides that ‘if the Court has acquitted a Government servant stating that the allegations are not true, then it is not permissible to hold a departmental enquiry on the same allegation. If the Court has only expressed a doubt on the correctness of the allegation, there is no objection holding an enquiry on the same allegation Learned counsel further argues that it is permissible to hold Departmental Enquiry after acquittal in respect of the charges, which is not identical with or similar to the charges in the criminal cases. On such ground, learned counsel prays for quashing the impugned order dated 27.06.2018 and for dropping the Departmental Proceeding as against the petitioner. To buttress his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner places heavy reliance upon the following judgments:- I. G.M. Tank Vs. State of Gujrat, reported in AIR 2006 (SC) 2129 II. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., reported in AIR 1999 (SC) 1416 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Rajesh Lala, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that there is no Rule of automatic reinstatement on acquittal by Criminal Court even though charges leveled against delinquent before the Inquiry Officer as well as Criminal court are same. Learned counsel further argues that Departmental Proceeding and the Criminal Trial are entirely different and independent to each other. In the Criminal Trial charges are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubts, where as the Departmental Inquiry is based on preponderance of probability. As per the Circular dated 22.09.2016 issued by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. and Circular dated 09.06.2017 issued by the Chief Vigilance Officer, Coal India Ltd., a decision was taken to issue charge sheet to the employees, whose prosecution sanction for criminal trial is granted by CBI. As per the Circular dated 22.09.2016 issued by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. and Circular dated 09.06.2017 issued by the Chief Vigilance Officer, Coal India Ltd., a decision was taken to issue charge sheet to the employees, whose prosecution sanction for criminal trial is granted by CBI. Learned counsel further argues that after acquittal of the petitioner, the S.P., CBI, ACB, Bhubnashwar has informed vide letter dated 04.04.2018 that the petitioner is still under trial and two other Court Cases (TR 25 and 26 of 2011 ) arising out of the same CBI Case, CBI has filed Appeals in the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa against those acquittal cases. The Departmental Proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by issuing a Memorandum of Charge dated 10/14.08.2017. However, it is specific case of CMPDIL that the criminal charges leveled against the petitioner was different to the charges leveled against the petitioner in the departmental proceeding. Therefore, the impugned order has been passed, rejecting the application of the petitioner. Learned counsel further argues that Departmental Inquiry is still going on. Departmental Inquiry was initiated before the Judgment of Learned Trial court. It is permissible to hold Departmental Inquiry after acquittal in respect of the charges, which is not identical with or similar to the charges in the criminal case. Learned counsel places heavy reliance on a Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Baljinder Pal Kaur Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., reported in (2016) 1 SCC 671 and in case of State of West Bengal Vs. Shankar Ghosh, reported in (2014) 3 SCC-610. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for interference. Admittedly, criminal proceeding and departmental proceeding are entirely different and independent to each other. In criminal case, charges are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubts whereas, the departmental enquiry is based on preponderance of probability. The charges in criminal case are somewhat different to the charges in the departmental proceeding. The charges in the departmental proceeding could not have been proved in the criminal proceeding and as such, non-fulfilment of duties and obligation as contained under Rule 4.1(i), 4.1(iii) and 4(iv) for the misconduct Rule which also tantamount to misconduct under Rule 5.0 (2), 5.0(3), 5.0(5), 5.0(15), 5.0(17), 5.0(20) & 5.0(26) said Rule. The charges in the departmental proceeding could not have been proved in the criminal proceeding and as such, non-fulfilment of duties and obligation as contained under Rule 4.1(i), 4.1(iii) and 4(iv) for the misconduct Rule which also tantamount to misconduct under Rule 5.0 (2), 5.0(3), 5.0(5), 5.0(15), 5.0(17), 5.0(20) & 5.0(26) said Rule. The departmental proceeding was initiated much prior to the acquittal in the criminal case. There is no straight jacket formula staying/dropping the departmental proceeding only on the ground that delinquent has been acquitted in the criminal proceeding. The petitioner has not been able to satisfy this Court from the documents that charges, evidences, witnesses are identical in criminal proceeding as well as departmental proceeding. The case law cited by the petitioner is of no help to him as the same talks of identical charges. From perusal of both the cases i.e. G.M. Tank Vs. State of Gujrat, reported in AIR 2006 (SC) 2129 and M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., reported in AIR 1999 (SC) 1416 , it appears that the departmental proceeding can only be stayed if the charges in the departmental proceeding as well as criminal proceeding are identical. In the instant case, charges are not identical and as such, the ratio of the aforesaid two cases are not applicable in case of the petitioner. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in para-22 of the Judgment in the case of Captain M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another reported in 1999 AIR (SC) 1416 has held as under: “22. The conclusion 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. (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 if so as to conclude them at any early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest.” 8. The Criminal trial and the departmental proceedings are two different entities and are not in the same hierarchy and are two distinct matter and may not overlap each other and the outcome of the departmental proceeding has no bearing upon the criminal proceeding. Hence, there is no legal bar in continuing both the proceedings simultaneously. The misconduct alleged against the petitioner in the departmental proceeding is, therefore, different and distinct from the criminal case. Moreover, there is no legal bar for both criminal as well as departmental proceedings to proceed simultaneously. If witnesses in criminal proceeding and departmental proceedings are same then it shall be prejudiced, the case of the delinquent does not come to rescue of the petitioner as witnesses cannot be said to be same in both the cases. The charges in the Departmental proceedings is of grave misconduct, which cannot be decided in a criminal case. If witnesses in criminal proceeding and departmental proceedings are same then it shall be prejudiced, the case of the delinquent does not come to rescue of the petitioner as witnesses cannot be said to be same in both the cases. The charges in the Departmental proceedings is of grave misconduct, which cannot be decided in a criminal case. The charges amount to unbecoming of the Government Servant, which was not a subject matter of decision in the criminal case. 9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Avinash Sadashiv Bhosale V. Union of India and Ors. Reported in 2012 AIR (SC) 755, has been pleased to hold as under: “54.1 There is no legal bar for both proceedings to go on simultaneously. 54.2 The only valid ground for claiming that the disciplinary proceedings may be stayed, would be to ensure that the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced. But even such grounds would be available only in cases involving complex question of facts and law. 54.3 Such defence ought not to be permitted to unnecessarily delay the departmental proceeding. The interest of the delinquent officer as well as the employer clearly lies in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. 54.4 Departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously to the criminal trial, except where both the proceedings are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common.” 10. Coordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Sunil Kumar V. Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi & Others [W.P.(S) No.4584/20145] and this Court in case Md. Rafique Alam Vs. The State of Jharkhand [in W.P.(S) No.3677 of 2017] have considered aforesaid Judgments and has reiterated same view and has been pleased to hold that there is no legal bar for both criminal as well as departmental proceedings to proceed simultaneously and as such, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as he has been acquitted in the criminal case, the departmental proceeding should be dropped, is not tenable in the eyes of law. It is also well settled law that initiation of Departmental Proceeding after acquittal in a criminal case is permissible in law but such power has to be exercised bon finely, fairly and reasonably, when there is evidence to prove the charges. It is also well settled law that initiation of Departmental Proceeding after acquittal in a criminal case is permissible in law but such power has to be exercised bon finely, fairly and reasonably, when there is evidence to prove the charges. In the instant case, there are ample evidence to prove the charges in the departmental proceeding on the basis of which, the said departmental proceeding has proceeded and the departmental proceeding was initiated much prior to acquittal in the criminal case. Merely, acquittal in the criminal proceeding cannot give clean chit to the petitioner from the charges of the departmental proceeding unless it is concluded. 11. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid, rules guidelines and judicial pronouncement, instant writ petition merits dismissal and is hereby dismissed. However, the respondents are directed to conclude departmental proceeding, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not concluded till date.