JUDGMENT : ASHOK KUMAR GAUR, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the punishment order dated 19.08.2011 passed in the name of the Governor of Rajasthan, whereby penalty of withholding of 50% of the pension for 10 years has been imposed under Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner was posted as Junior Engineer in Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana (IGNP), 28th Division Phalodi and was repatriated to Irrigation Department (Parent department) and relieved on 28.04.1986 for Jaipur. After transfer of the petitioner, some shortage was reported in the material of Bhatta Burji 1236 (Pungal), where petitioner was posted from June, 1984 to February, 1986 and after preliminary enquiry being conducted by the Officers of the Department (Additonal Chief Engineer, INGP, Bikaner), an FIR No. 53/1994 came to be registered against the petitioner at Police Station Nachna for offence under Sections 409, 379 & 380 of IPC. The police conducted investigation and filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner under Section 409 of IPC (Criminal Breach of Trust by Public Servant) and a criminal case was tried by ACJM, Pokran. 3. The petitioner was in receipt of a charge-sheet dated 01.02.1997 wherein it was alleged that petitioner was posted as Junior Engineer at Sub-Division-III (Pungal Branch, Division-II) in 20th Division from 1984 to 1986, during period from June, 1984 to February, 1986, there were material, tools and machines (stocks) in his custody and these were misappropriated, causing loss of Rs.12,39,704/- to the State Government. 4. It would be relevant to quote the charge levelled against the petitioner as under:- ^^vkjksi i= fo:) Jh xqjnhiflag dfu"B vfHk;Urk flapkbZ ;g fd mDr Jh xqjnhiflag dfu"B vfHk;Urk mi[k.M r`rh; ¼iwxy 'kk[kk [k.M&f}rh;½ fu;U=.k 20oka [k.M esa o"kZ 84 ls 86 rd inLFkkfir FksA mDr vof/k 6@84 ls 2@86 esa mudh vfHkj{kk@lqj{kk esa lkSais x;s Hk.Mkj rFkk vkStkj ,oa la;= dks [kqnZ&cqnZ djds jkT; ljdkj dks #i;s 12]39]704@& dh {kfr igaqphA ftlds fy, og mRrjnk;h gSA ftldk fooj.k layXu vkjksi fooj.k i= esa of.kZr gSA mi&'kklu lfpoA** 5. The charge-sheet was issued to seven other persons, however, the State Government appointed Commissioner of Departmental Enquries (First) to conduct D.E. against only petitioner and one Shri R.K. Garg, the then Executive Engineer. 6. The charge-sheet was issued to seven other persons, however, the State Government appointed Commissioner of Departmental Enquries (First) to conduct D.E. against only petitioner and one Shri R.K. Garg, the then Executive Engineer. 6. While the aforesaid departmental enquiry was pending, the petitioner was facing the criminal trial in the court of ACJM, Pokaran for alleged offence committed under Section 409 of IPC. 7. The trial court in criminal case also decided to consider as to whether the petitioner has committed any offence of criminal breach of trust by Public Servant or not in respect of material, which was alleged to be in custody of the petitioner. The question being considered by the trial court in its judgment is quoted as hereunder:- ^^gekjs le{k fopkj.kh; Á'u ;g gS fd vk;k lqlaxr frfFk] le; ,oa LFkku ij vfHk;qDr xq:nhi flag yksdlsod dh gSfl;r ls bfUnjk xka/kh ugj ifj;kstuk dh cqthZ la[;k 1236 ij lgk;d vfHk;Urk dh gSfl;r ls fu;qDr Fkk vkSj cqthZ la[;k 1236 ds LVksj ,oa ihŒ ,.M ihŒ jftLVj esa lkexzh mlesa inLFk Fkh ftldk vfHk;qDr us csbZekuhiwoZd vius mi;ksx esa ysdj vkijkf/kd nqfoZfu;ksx fd;k\** 8. The trial court during trial, recorded evidence on behalf of the department-prosecution of following witnesses: PW-1 Kailash Chandra, PW-2 O.P. Soni, PW-3 Kanti Gopal, PW-4 Nainu Ram, PW-5 K.C. Mattad, PW-6, Kamla Prasad, PW-7 Bhabhut Singh, PW-8 Lal Singh and PW-9 Arjun Singh. The petitioner in defence produced witnesses, namely, DW-1 Om Prakash Gaur, DW-2 Balwant Singh, DW-3 Subhash Chandra, DW-4 Bhagwana Ram and DW-5 Tola Ram, DW-6 Gurdeep Singh (petitioner himself). 9. The trial court after considering the entire evidence of both the parties, came to the conclusion that petitioner had not committed any offence under Section 409 of IPC and there was no evidence to the effect that petitioner had dishonestly misappropriated any property of the State Government. 10. The operative portion of the order of the trial court dt. 9. The trial court after considering the entire evidence of both the parties, came to the conclusion that petitioner had not committed any offence under Section 409 of IPC and there was no evidence to the effect that petitioner had dishonestly misappropriated any property of the State Government. 10. The operative portion of the order of the trial court dt. 07.04.2004 is reproduced as hereunder:- ^^/kkjk 409 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk ds rgr nks"kflf) ds fy, vfHk;kstu dks ;g lkfcr djuk ije vko';d gS fd vfHk;qDr us jktdh; lEifr dk csbZekuhiwoZd vius mi;ksx esa ysdj nqfoZfu;ksx fd;k gSA ÁLrqr Ádj.k esa ,slh dksbZ lk{; ugha gS fd vfHk;qDr us ljdkjh lEifr dks csbZekuhiwoZd vius mi;ksx esa ysdj nqfoZfu;ksx fd;k gks oju~ mldh xSj ekStwnxh esa cqthZ la[;k 1236 ij iMs+ gq, eky dks foHkkx ds vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk foHkkx ds dke esa vU; vkjŒMhŒ ij yh x;h gSA jktdh; lEifr dk vfHk;qDr }kjk csbZekuhiwoZd vius mi;ksx esa fy;s tkus dh lk{; ds vHkko esa ek= pktZ esa lqiqnZ dj ugha tkus ls vkijkf/kd nqfoZfu;ksx fd;k x;k gks] ugha dgk tk ldrkA tSlk fd ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us vius U;kf;d n`"VkUr 1977 ,ŒvkbZŒvkjŒ ¼,lŒlhŒ½ fØfeuy ykW tujy ist 1766] lqUnj flag cuke LVsV vkWQ gfj;k.kk esa vo/kkfjr fd;k x;k gSA bl Ádkj mijksDr lexz lk{; foospu ds vk/kkj ij vfHk;kstu i{k] ;g lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgk gS fd vfHk;qDr xq:nhi flag cqthZ la[;k 1236 ij de ik;s x;s lkeku dks csbZekuhiwoZd vius mi;ksx esa ysdj vkijkf/kd nqfoZfu;ksx fd;k gksA ftlds vHkko esa vfHk;qDr /kkjk 409 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk ds vijk/k ds vkjksi ls nks"keqDr ;ksX; gSA &%% vkns'k %%& vr% ifj.kkeLo:i vfHk;qDr xq:nhiflag iq= Jh xq:iky flag tkfr fl[k fuoklh 6 ,QŒ iqfyl Fkkuk] eVhyh ftyk xaxkuxj gky tsŒbZŒ,uŒ bfUnjk xka/kh ugj ifj;kstuk] chdkusj dks vkjksfir vijk/k vUrxZr /kkjk 409 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk ds rgr nks"keqDr fd;k tkrk gSA vfHk;qDr ds iwoZ esa fy;s x;s tekur eqpyds ckcr gktjh fujLr fd;s tkrs gSA Ádj.k esa tCr'kqnk vkVhZdy 01 yxk;r 03 ¼jftLVj½ ckn xqtjus E;kn ^^vihy fjohtu** iqu% foHkkx dks ykSVk;k tkosA i=koyh mijksDrkuqlkj QSlyk'kqekj gks dj ckn bUækt jftLVj nkf[ky nrj gksA** 11. The Enquiry Officer so appointed against the petitioner and Shri R.K. Garg, conducted the enquiry and did not find the charge proved against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer so appointed against the petitioner and Shri R.K. Garg, conducted the enquiry and did not find the charge proved against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that on transfer of the petitioner by order dated 08.04.1986, petitioner was relieved by order dated 28.04.1986 and charge was not taken from the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer recorded that petitioner had made request several times to handover the charge but Department did not issue any order or authorized any person to take the charge. The Enquiry Officer further said that charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner after lapse of 8 years and further the Enquiry Officer made a reference of judgment dated 07.04.2004 passed by ACJM, Pokaran where petitioner was acquitted in a criminal case on identical charge. The relevant portion of the enquiry report dated 29.02.2008 is reproduced as hereunder:- ^^bl laca/k esa ÁLrqr nLrkostkr vfHk;kstu i{k ,oa cpkoi{k }kjk ÁLrqr fyf[kr cgl ,oa xokgksa ds c;kuksa dk voyksdu ,oa euu djus ij Li"V gS fd vkjksfir vf/kdkjh dk LFkkukUrj.k gksus ij foHkkx dks pkfg;s Fkk dh LFkkukUrj vkns'k fnukad 8-4-1986 dh ikyuk esa fnukad 28-4-1986 ¼Án'kZMh&1½ dks dk;ZeqDr djrs le; gh vU; vf/kdkjh dks pktZ nsus ij gh dk;ZeqDr djuk pkfg;s FkkA bl laca/k esa vkjksfir vf/kdkjh }kjk foHkkx dks ckj pktZ nsus gsrq fy[kus ij Hkh fdlh dks pktZ ugha fnyok;kA dk;ZeqfDr ds 8 o"kZ ckn vkjksi i= tkjh fd;k gSA tcfd fu;ekuqlkj ?kVuk ds pkj o"kZ ds vUnj vkjksii= tkjh gks tkuk pkfg;s FkkA ekuuh; U;k;ky; vfrŒ eq[; U;kf;d eftLVªsV iksdj.k us Hkh vius fu.kZ; fnukad 7-4-2004 esa ekuk gS fd vfHk;qDr ds fuyEcu dky esa fcuk pktZ dk vknku Ánku fd;s gh dk;ZeqDr fd;k x;k rFkk pktZ vknku Ánku djus gsrq dksbZ Li"V funsZ'k ugha fn;s rFkk Ádj.k esa vfHk;qDr dks nks"keqDr fd;k gSA vfHk;kstu i{k ds xokgksa us vius dFku esa Lohdkj ugha fd;k fd vkjksfir vf/kdkjh }kjk pktZ ugha fn;k gks ;k pktZ nsus esa vkukdkuh dh gksA vr% vkjksfir vf/kdkjh Jh xq:nhiflag dfu"B vfHk;ark ds fo:) vkjksi fl) ugha ik;k tkrk gSA vkjksifr vf/kdkjh Jh vkjŒdsŒ xxZ ds fo:) vkjksi la[;k 1 yxk;r 3 rFkk vkjksfir vf/kdkjh Jh xq:nhiflag ds fo:) vkjksi la[;k&1 fl) ugha ik;k tkrk gSA foHkkxh; tkap Áfrosnu dkfeZd foHkkx dks vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq Ásf"kr gSA** 12. It is important to note that petitioner has retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2007 while the departmental enquiry was going on against him. 13. The Disciplinary Authority after receipt of the enquiry report did not agree with the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer and sent letter dated 10.07.2008 to petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority found that petitioner was responsible for maintaining the security of the stock under his custody/possession and till the petitioner did not hand over the charge of stock/book balance of T&P, he was responsible for security of such good. The Disciplinary Authority also observed that petitioner was acquitted by criminal court due to lack of evidence and as such, it did not affect the charges levelled in the enquiry proceedings. 14. The petitioner submitted his reply to the disagreement note given to him by the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner submitted that the evidence which was recorded during criminal case of PW-4 Nanu Ram, could not be misread by the Disciplinary Authority to hold petitioner guilty. The petitioner further pointed out that evidence was available on record that no efforts were made to take the charge from the petitioner in spite of several letters written by him to the higher authorities. The petitioner further submitted that he was relieved without taking the charge in a designed manner so the other officers could misuse the stock, which was lying at the site. The petitioner also pointed out the fact of his acquittal in a criminal case on identical charges and further the same witnesses were examined during the departmental enquiry. 15. The Disciplinary Authority after receipt of the reply of the petitioner has passed the impugned order dated 19.08.2011. 16. Mr. M.M. Mehrishi, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner could not have been visited with the penalty as petitioner was acquitted honourably in criminal proceedings. Mr. Mehrishi submitted that on same facts and evidence, if there is an honourable acquittal in criminal proceedings, the Departmental Authorities cannot pass the penalty order in disciplinary proceedings. 17. Mr. Mehrishi has submitted that the Enquiry Officer has given his specific findings after considering the evidence and on the same set of evidence, different conclusions could not have been drawn by the Disciplinary Authority while issuing the disagreement note. 17. Mr. Mehrishi has submitted that the Enquiry Officer has given his specific findings after considering the evidence and on the same set of evidence, different conclusions could not have been drawn by the Disciplinary Authority while issuing the disagreement note. He has submitted that the acquittal of the petitioner in criminal case was honourable acquittal and as such, the Disciplinary Authority had no powers to treat the order of criminal court, passed on technical ground or due to lack of evidence. 18. Mr. Mehrishi has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of S. Bhaskar Reddy v. Superintendent of Police, reported in 2014 (8) Supreme Court 570. 19. Mr. B.L. Avasthi, learned Additional Government Counsel has submitted that the entire procedure prescribed under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958 have been followed. The petitioner has been given full opportunity to defend himself as the copy of disagreement note was sent to him. Mr. Avasthi submits that in a criminal case, strict proof of evidence is required while in departmental enquiry, it is the preponderance of probabilities. 20. Mr. Avasthi has submitted that the charge levelled against the petitioner in departmental enquiry is different as petitioner failed to discharge his duty by not maintaining the security of the stock, which was under his control. He submitted that in a criminal case, the issue was with regard to mis-appropriation of government property and as such, no parity can be claimed by the petitioner in respect of charge levelled in the departmental enquiry and criminal offence committed under the provisions of Indian Penal Code. 21. Mr. Avasthi has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Central Industrial Security Force v. Abrar Ali, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 507 : AIR 2017 SC 200 . 22. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully perused the entire record. 23. The perusal of charge levelled against the petitioner (quoted in earlier para) clearly alleges that the stock which was in possession/custody of the petitioner, was misappropriated and as such, it caused loss to the Government of Rs.12,39,704/-. The charge levelled against the petitioner in a criminal case was in respect of an offence committed under Section 409 of IPC which provides punishment for committing offence of criminal breach of trust by misappropriating government property. The charge levelled against the petitioner in a criminal case was in respect of an offence committed under Section 409 of IPC which provides punishment for committing offence of criminal breach of trust by misappropriating government property. There is no iota of difference between the charge levelled against the petitioner in the departmental enquiry and the criminal offence for which the petitioner was tried in criminal case. 24. The Court further finds that the acquittal of the petitioner is not on technical ground and it is honourable acquittal. The trial court while passing the order of acquittal has recorded finding that there was no evidence on record that petitioner had any dishonest intention to misappropriate the property and there was no evidence to the effect that petitioner had derived any financial benefit by alleged loss of property/stock. 25. The Apex Court in the case of S. Bhaskar Reddy v. Superintendent of Police (supra) has held that where facts and evidence in the departmental as well as criminal proceedings were the same without there being any iota of difference, the person cannot be punished in departmental enquiry. The relevant para of the judgment is quoted as hereunder:- “31. In our opinion, such facts and evidence in the departmental as well as criminal proceedings were the same without there being any iota of [pic]difference, the appellant should succeed. The distinction which is usually proved between the departmental and criminal proceedings on the basis of the approach and burden of proof would not be applicable in the instant case. Though the finding recorded in the domestic enquiry was found to be valid by the courts below, when there was an honourable acquittal of the employee during the pendency of the proceedings challenging the dismissal, the same requires to be taken note of and the decision in Paul Anthony case will apply. We, therefore, hold that the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed.” 26. The Court finds that in the present case, the facts and evidence in the departmental as well as in the criminal proceedings, are same without there being any iota of difference. The Apex Court has time and again reiterated the settled principle of law that where words, charges, evidence, witnesses and circumstances are one and the same, it remains unjust and unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded in the departmental proceedings to stand. 27. The Apex Court has time and again reiterated the settled principle of law that where words, charges, evidence, witnesses and circumstances are one and the same, it remains unjust and unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded in the departmental proceedings to stand. 27. This Court further finds that the Disciplinary Authority has misinterpreted the order passed by criminal court where the petitioner has not been given any benefit of doubt or there was lack of evidence. The petitioner has been acquitted honourably and as such, for the same charge, the petitioner cannot be made liable in the departmental enquiry inviting any punishment order. 28. The judgment of the apex Court in the case of Central Industrial Security Force v. Abrar Ali (supra) cited by the learned Government Advocate, lays down the parameters of powers of High Court under Article 226-227 of the Constitution of India in respect of interference in disciplinary proceedings and not to venture into re-appreciation of the evidence. The Court in the present case has not re-appreciated the evidence or interfered with the conclusions of enquiry and further, not considered adequacy and reliability of the evidence. The case cited by learned Government Advocate is of no assistance in the present facts of the case and on the legal issue involved in the writ petition. 29. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the punishment order dated 19.08.2011 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to pass consequential orders within a period of two months from the receipt of the certified copy of this order.