JUDGMENT : Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J. 1. Heard Sri Shivam Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vishal Verma, learned State Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has initially assailed the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner issuing the charge-sheet, which is contained as Annexure No.12 to the writ petition. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has already been acquitted from the trial court i.e. the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Bulandshahr vide order dated 24.11.2018 passed in Criminal Case No.642 of 2018; State vs. Sanjay Kishore bearing Case Crime No.710 of 2015, under Sections 409, 420 I.P.C. and Section 66-D of I.T. Act read with Section 4/10 of U.P. Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District-Bulandshahr. The trial court is having the identical facts and allegations pursuant to which the departmental enquiry has been conducted, therefore, he may not be departmentally tried for the same set of facts and evidences in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat and Anr, 2006 5 SCC 446 . 4. Since during pendency of this writ petition, which was filed on 23.04.2019, the Secretary of the Department has issued a show cause notice dated 03.05.2019 enclosing therewith the copy of the enquiry report dated 16.04.2019, which is contained as Annexure No.17 to the writ petition, therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has amended the writ petition and has assailed the enquiry report dated 16.04.2019 and show cause notice dated 03.05.2019, which are contained collectively as Annexure No.17. The fact that the enquiry against the petitioner has been concluded and the show cause notice has been issued, has been brought into the notice of the Court on 30.05.2019, therefore, vide order dated 30.05.2019 this Court permitted the petitioner to amend the writ petition and protection was granted restraining the competent authority to take final decision in the matter. It has been informed by learned counsel for the parties that no final decision has been taken in compliance of order of this Court dated 30.05.2019. 5. It has been informed by learned counsel for the parties that no final decision has been taken in compliance of order of this Court dated 30.05.2019. 5. The question to be adjudicated by this Court is as to whether the departmental trial may be conducted to examine the similar facts and evidences for which the criminal proceedings have been concluded resulting in the hon'ble acquittal from the criminal court of an employee. 6. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was serving on the post of Principal in Government Industrial Training Institute, Bulandshahar in the year 2015 when the incident in question took place. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the entire career of the petitioner for 30 years was spotless and unblemished. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner through out his illustrious career supervised and conducted All India National Level Examination of Industrial Training Institutes (here-in-after referred to as the "I.T.I.") in the capacity of Nodal Principal of the respective districts and no discrepancy any kind whatsoever has been pointed out. He has also served as Drawing & Disbursing Officer of Directorate Training and Employment of U.P. In July, 2015, the petitioner was discharging his official duties as Nodal Principal, Government Industrial Training Institute, Bulandshahar and as a part of his duties, he written official letters to the District Magistrate, Bulandshahar and Senior Superintendent of Police, Bulandshahar for deployment of of Magistrates and sufficient police force at all Examination Centres to ensure fair and transparent conduct of examination. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, after much persuasion and deliberation the District Magistrate, Bulandshahar issued an order dated 25.07.2015 deploying the Static Magistrates at all five Examination Centres endorsing the same to the Senior Superintendent of Police for posting sufficient police force at all Examination Centres 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the Theory Papers of the said All India National Level Examination of six Government I.T.Is. and about 28 private I.T.Is. started from 30.07.2015. As per learned counsel for the petitioner while visiting the Examination Centres, the petitioner being a Nodal Officer found that the Static Magistrates and police force were remaining absent from the Examination Centres. and about 28 private I.T.Is. started from 30.07.2015. As per learned counsel for the petitioner while visiting the Examination Centres, the petitioner being a Nodal Officer found that the Static Magistrates and police force were remaining absent from the Examination Centres. The petitioner immediately preferred necessary letters to the District Magistrate apprising the situation but for the reasons bast known to the District Magistrate concerned, she was furious and angry with the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case of leaking of question papers and illegally helping the students in connivance with the private persons. Thereafter, the First Information Report was lodged against the petitioner bearing Case Crime No.710 of 2015, under Sections 409 & 420 I.P.C. and Section 66-D of I.T. Act read with Section 4/10 of U.P. Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District-Bulandshahr and trial thereof has been conducted in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Bulandshahar bearing Criminal Case No.642 of 2018. 9. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that after the necessary legal formalities being completed the trial started and all the relevant material as well as evidences have been examined by the learned trial court. The statements of the prosecution and defence witnesses were recorded and examined. The learned trial court, vide para-31 of the acquittal order dated 24.11.2018 acquitted the petitioner from all the charges. The aforesaid acquittal order is a clear and hon'ble acquittal order for the reason that the prosecution could not establish the charge against the petitioner "beyond all reasonable doubts", therefore, the petitioner was acquitted. The learned trial court, vide para-31 of the acquittal order dated 24.11.2018 acquitted the petitioner from all the charges. The aforesaid acquittal order is a clear and hon'ble acquittal order for the reason that the prosecution could not establish the charge against the petitioner "beyond all reasonable doubts", therefore, the petitioner was acquitted. Para-31 and operative portion of the acquittal order dated 24.11.2018 are being reproduced here-in-below:- 31- mijksDr lEiw.kZ fo'ys"k.k ds vk/kkj ij U;k;ky; bl fu"d"kZ ij igqaprk gS fd vfHk;kstu i{k vfHk;qDr lat; fd'kksj ds fo#) yxk;s x;s vkjksiksa dks ;qfDr&;qDr lUnsg ls ijs lkfcr djus esa lQy ugha gks ldk gSA pwafd vfHk;kstu i{k vfHk;qDr ds fo#) yxk;s x;s vkjksiksa dks ;qfDr&;qDRkd lUnsg ls ijs lkfcr djus esa lQy ugha gks ldk] vr% vfHk;qDr lat; fd'kksj yxk;s x;s vkjksi vUrxZr /kkjk&409] 420 Hkk0na0la0] 66 Mh lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh vf/kfu;e o 4@10 mRrj izns'k lkoZtfud ijh{kk ¼vuqfpr lk/kuksa dk fuokj.k½ ls nks"keqDr gksus ;ksX; gSAa vkns'k vfHk;qDr lat; fd'kksj dks vijk/k la[;k&710@2015] ljdkj cuke lat; fd'kksj] Fkkuk dksrokyh uxj] ftyk cqyUn'kgj ds ekeys esa yxk;s x;s vkjksi vUrxZr /kkjk&409] 420 Hkk0na0la0] 66 Mh lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh vf/kfu;e o 4@10 mRrj izns'k lkoZtfud ijh{kk ¼vuqfpr lk/kuksa dk fuokj.k½ ls nks"keqDRk fd;k tkrk gSA vfHk;qDr U;kf;d vfHkj{kk esa gSA vfHk;qDr dk fjgkbZ vkns'k vfoyEc ftyk dkjkxkj] cqyUn'kgj izsf"kr gksA vijk/k la[;k&710@2010 mDRk ls lEcfU/kr lg vfHk;qDrx.k dh i=koyh blh U;k;ky; ds le{k fopkj.k gsrq yfEcr gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa bl eqdnesa ls lEcfU/kr eky eqdnekrh 'ks"k vfHk;qDRkx.k ds fopkj.k esa gq, fu.kZ; o vkns'k rFkk ekuuh; vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k ds vuqikyu esa fuLrkfjr dh tk;sA vfHk;qDr /kkjk&437, n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds micU/kksa ds vuqikyu esa vadu&20&20 gtkj #i;s dk cU/ki= o blh /kujkf'k ds nks izfrHkwr vUnj lkr fnu nkf[ky djsA 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.12 to the writ petition, which is charge-sheet dated 04.10.2017 whereby four charges had been levelled against the petitioner. Since the criminal trial was going on against the petitioner in the same set of facts and circumstances, therefore, the departmental proceedings could not be concluded, however, the petitioner had denied all the charges levelled against him by means of the aforesaid charge-sheet. 11. Since the criminal trial was going on against the petitioner in the same set of facts and circumstances, therefore, the departmental proceedings could not be concluded, however, the petitioner had denied all the charges levelled against him by means of the aforesaid charge-sheet. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that when the criminal trial was concluded on 24.11.2018 wherein the allegations so levelled against the petitioner by means of the charge-sheet filed before the criminal court and the departmental charge-sheet has been examined and scrutinized, the departmental trial against the petitioner should not be conducted, rather, it should be dropped for the reason that the criminal court does appreciate the evidences more carefully than in the departmental trial for the reason that the criminal trial is based on the principles that the charges to be proved against the accused "beyond all reasonable doubts", whereas in the departmental trial the charges are proved through preponderance of the probabilities. Therefore, the veracity and trustworthiness of criminal courts in examining the factum of allegation carries much more weight than the authorities conducting the departmental trial. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.17 to the writ petition referring the enquiry report dated 15/16.04.2019, which shows that the charge no.1 was held to have been proved against the petitioner. The charge no.1 categorically provides that the petitioner having collusion with some unfair syndicates/private institutions leaked the papers on Whatsapp as the petitioner was sending messages through Whatsapp when he was arrested. The aforesaid charge against the petitioner was treated to be proved on the testimony of one Sri Lalta Prasad Shakya, who was the Sub-Divisional Magistrate/In-charge at that point of time. Thereafter, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards the acquittal order dated 24.11.2018 referring the testimony of Sri Lalta Prasad Shakya, who was PW-1 before the trial court, who deposed on affidavit that when the petitioner was taken into custody he was not having any Mobile nor any I.D. proof nor any money nor any paper nor paper of any vehicle. 13. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it should be believed that the Sub Divisional Magistrate, In-charge, namely, Sri Lalta Prasad Skahya would depose before the trial court on affidavit rightly, therefore, the charge no.1 against the petitioner may not be treated to be proved, more particularly, when the charge has been examined by the learned trial court and the petitioner was not found guilty for the said charge. Likewise, the Inquiry Officer has himself said that the charge no.2 is not fully proved against the petitioner, charge no.3 is partly proved and the charge no.4 is fully proved. Charge no.4 is also depending upon the charge no.1, rather, charge nos. 2, 3 and 4 are dependent upon the charge no.1. As a matter of fact, all the charges may be summarized in one charge, that is, the petitioner has leaked the question papers and has illegally helped the students in connivance with the private persons. This charge has throughly been examined by the learned trial court and the learned trial court found the petitioner not guilty as the prosecution could not establish the charges against the petitioner "beyond all reasonable doubts". The order of the learned trial court reveals that it is not the case where the petitioner has been given the benefit of doubt but it is the case of clear and honourable acquittal of the person. 14. On the other hand, learned State Counsel has submitted with vehemence that the manner conducting the departmental enquiry and the criminal trial is different. The criminal trial concludes on the basis of principles that the charge/charges be proved "beyond all reasonable doubts" adducing the relevant evidences supporting the charges but the departmental enquiry concludes on the basis of principles of preponderance of the probability and in the departmental trial the law of evidence does not apply. He has further submitted that there may be the cases where the employee has been acquitted from the criminal charges but in the departmental enquiry he/she has been found guilty. 15. Learned State Counsel has further submitted that in the departmental trial the conduct of an employee is examined whereas in the criminal trial the entire facts and circumstances of the issue along with the relevant evidences are examined. 15. Learned State Counsel has further submitted that in the departmental trial the conduct of an employee is examined whereas in the criminal trial the entire facts and circumstances of the issue along with the relevant evidences are examined. He has further submitted that there may be the cases where the offence alleged could not be proved but on account of the said conduct the image of the department maligns as the employee concerned has not discharged his duties strictly as per the service jurisprudence, therefore, there may not be any restriction in conducting the departmental enquiry even if he has been acquitted from the criminal trial. 16. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, I do not find any of the charges of the departmental trial are sufficient to hold the petitioner guilty for the simple reason that the same set of facts and evidences have been carefully examined by the learned trial court and the degree precision of the learned trial court may not be questioned in the departmental trial, therefore, the petitioner may not be punished departmentally on the basis of enquiry report dated 15/16.04.2017 (Annexure No.17 to the writ petition). The careful scrutiny of the charges so levelled against the petitioner before the criminal trial are more or less identical and same with the departmental charge-sheet. In my opinion those facts and the evidences in the departmental as well as in the criminal proceedings are same without there being any iota of difference. 17. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re: R.P. Kapur vs. Union of India and anr, 1964 AIR (SC) 787 has held that if the trial of the criminal charge results in conviction, disciplinary proceedings are bound to follow against the public servant so convicted. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that even in the case of acquittal proceedings may follow where the acquittal is other than honorable. As per the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court, the usual practice is that where a public servant is being tried on a criminal charge, the Government postpones holding a departmental enqiry and awaits the result of the criminal trial and departmental proceedings follow on the result of the criminal trial. As per the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court, the usual practice is that where a public servant is being tried on a criminal charge, the Government postpones holding a departmental enqiry and awaits the result of the criminal trial and departmental proceedings follow on the result of the criminal trial. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in re: R.P. Kapur (supra), since the petitioner has been acquitted Honorably by the trial court, therefore, he may not be departmentally tried. 18. The Hon'ble Apex Court has followed the aforesaid analogy in the subsequent case in re: the Deputy Inspector General of Police and another vs. S. Samuthiram, 2013 1 SCC 598 . The relevant paras-21 and 22 are being reproduced here-in-below:- "21. The meaning of the expression ''honourable acquittal' came up for consideration before this Court in Management of Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi v. Bhopal Singh Panchal, 1994 1 SCC 541 . In that case, this Court has considered the impact of Regulation 46(4) dealing with honourable acquittal by a criminal court on the disciplinary proceedings. In that context, this Court held that the mere acquittal does not entitle an employee to reinstatement in service, the acquittal, it was held, has to be honourable. The expressions ''honourable acquittal', ''acquitted of blame', ''fully exonerated' are unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code, which are coined by judicial pronouncements. It is difficult to define precisely what is meant by the expression ''honourably acquitted'. When the accused is acquitted after full consideration of prosecution evidence and that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted. 22. In R.P. Kapoor v. Union of India, 1964 AIR(SC) 787, it was held even in the case of acquittal, departmental proceedings may follow where the acquittal is other than honourable. In State of Assam and another v. Raghava Rajgopalachari,1972 SLR 45, this Court quoted with approval the views expressed by Lord Williams, J. in (1934) 61 ILR Cal. 168 which is as follows: 'The expression "honourably acquitted" is one which is unknown to court of justice. Apparently it is a form of order used in courts martial and other extra judicial tribunals. 168 which is as follows: 'The expression "honourably acquitted" is one which is unknown to court of justice. Apparently it is a form of order used in courts martial and other extra judicial tribunals. We said in our judgment that we accepted the explanation given by the appellant believed it to be true and considered that it ought to have been accepted by the Government authorities and by the magistrate. Further, we decided that the appellant had not misappropriated the monies referred to in the charge. It is thus clear that the effect of our judgment was that the appellant was acquitted as fully and completely as it was possible for him to be acquitted. Presumably, this is equivalent to what Government authorities term ''honourably acquitted'." (Emphasis supplied) 19. In the case of G.M. (Operations) S.B.I. & another vs. R. Periyasamy, 2015 3 SCC 101 the Hon'ble Apex Court in para-10 has dealt with the present question as under:- "10.....While dealing with the question as to whether a person with doubtful integrity ought to be allowed to work in a Government Department, this Court in Commissioner of Police New Delhi & Anr. Vs. Mehar Singh, held that while the standard of proof in a criminal case is proof beyond all reasonable doubt, the proof in a departmental proceeding is merely the preponderance of probabilities. The Court observed that quite often criminal cases end in acquittal because witnesses turn hostile and therefore, such acquittals are not acquittals on merit. An acquittal based on benefit of doubt would not stand on par with a clean acquittal on merit after a full-fledged trial, where there is no indication of the witnesses being won over. The long standing view on this subject was settled by this Court in R.P. Kapur Vs. Union of India, whereby it was held that a departmental proceeding can proceed even though a person is acquitted when the acquittal is other than honourable. We are in agreement with this view...." (Emphasis supplied) 20. The Hon'ble Apex Court in re: G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat and anr, 2006 5 SCC 446 has dealt with identical issue and has held in para-31 as under:- "31. In our opinion, such facts and evidence in the department as well as criminal proceedings were the same without there being any iota of difference, the appellant should succeed. The Hon'ble Apex Court in re: G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat and anr, 2006 5 SCC 446 has dealt with identical issue and has held in para-31 as under:- "31. In our opinion, such facts and evidence in the department as well as criminal proceedings were the same without there being any iota of 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 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's case (supra) will apply. We, therefore, hold that the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed." (Emphasis supplied) 21. Considering the facts and circumstances of the issue in question and perusing the material available on record as well as aforesaid dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court, I am of the considered view that the departmental enquiry against the petitioner is non est in the eyes of law. Since the petitioner has been acquitted from the trial court honourably wherein the same facts and evidences have been tested which are part and parcel of the departmental trial, therefore, he should not be punished by the department on the basis of findings of Enquiry Officer in the same issue. 22. Accordingly, a writ of certiorari is issued quashing the charge-sheet dated 4th October, 2017 (Annexure No.12 to the writ petition), the enquiry report dated 15/16.04.2019 and show cause notice dated 03.05.2019 (Annexure No.17 to the writ petition). 23. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties not to proceed against the petitioner in furtherance of the aforesaid departmental enquiry report dated 15/16.04.2019 (Annexure No.17 to the writ petition). 24. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. 25. No order as to costs.