JUDGMENT : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. I.A No. 4412 of 2018 1. This application has been filed for condonation of delay of 226 days in filing the instant appeal. This application is not opposed by the learned State counsel. We find that sufficient cause has been shown by the appellant for condoning the delay. Accordingly, I.A. No.4412 of 2018 is allowed and delay of 226 days in filing this Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. L.P.A. No.285 of 2017 With consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, we have taken up this appeal for hearing at this stage itself. 2. The appellant is aggrieved of the order dated 23.09.2016 passed in W.P.(S) No.107 of 2010. 3. By the impugned order dated 23.09.2016, his challenge to the order of dismissal from service dated 13.04.2000 has failed. 4. Contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the order of dismissal from service has been passed by the disciplinary authority not on the basis of the evidence laid in the departmental enquiry, rather on extraneous grounds. 5. The appellant, who was an accused in Tatanagar GRPS Case No.32 of 1997 registered for the offence punishable under sections 307/302/379 I.P.C and section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, did not participate in the departmental proceeding. He has remained unauthorizedly absent from the duty and therefore a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. The plea taken by him that during the relevant period he was in judicial custody must fail because it was only after he was dismissed from service vide order dated 13.04.2000, he was taken into judicial custody on 16.05.2000 in connection to Tatanagar GRPS Case No.32 of 1997. Evidently, the stand taken by the appellant that the departmental enquiry was conducted in violation of the rules of natural justice is without substance. 6. Before the writ Court, the appellant raised a plea founded on Rule 844 and 847 of the Jharkhand Police Manual, which according to him mandates that during pendency of a criminal case the departmental proceeding must be stayed. 7. On this, suffice it would be to record that there is no such absolute rule in service jurisprudence that once a criminal case has been lodged against an employee the departmental proceeding initiated against him must stop. 7. On this, suffice it would be to record that there is no such absolute rule in service jurisprudence that once a criminal case has been lodged against an employee the departmental proceeding initiated against him must stop. Contrary to this, the law is that only in exceptional cases that is when it is found that in the departmental enquiry as well as the criminal trial charges are the same and the evidences sought to be laid by the department/prosecution are also the same and the issue involved therein is complicated questions of fact, a departmental proceeding during pendency of a criminal trial may be stayed [refer, “Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another” reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 ]. 8. The learned writ Court has referred to the stand taken by the respondent-State in the counter-affidavit through which it was pointed out that sufficient opportunity was afforded to the delinquent-appellant to defend himself during the departmental enquiry. Referring to the judgment in “Deputy Inspector General of Police and another Vs. S. Samuthiram” reported in (2013) 1 SCC 598 , the learned writ Court has observed as under: “7. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and on perusal of the records, I am of the considered view the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for interference due to following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements: (i). In the case at hand, the charges levelled against the petitioner appears to be very grave and the same has been proved in the departmental proceeding by the enquiry officer. In the disciplinary proceeding the copy of the enquiry report has duly been served upon the petitioner and furthermore prior to infliction of punishment second show cause notice has been served upon the petitioner. Hence, a full dressed enquiry was done before passing the impugned order of dismissal from services leaving no iota of doubt or debate regarding procedural irregularity. (ii). It is well settled position of law that the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has got limited jurisdiction to interfere in the case where entire proceeding is based on no evidence or there has been no procedural irregularity. (ii). It is well settled position of law that the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has got limited jurisdiction to interfere in the case where entire proceeding is based on no evidence or there has been no procedural irregularity. In the instant case, on perusal of the record it appears that there has been no procedural irregularity from the initiation of proceeding till its culmination so as to warrant interference by this Court. (iii). So far as the charges against the petitioner is concerned, it has been proved and basing on the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority imposed the impugned punishment. Therefore, the proceeding initiated against the petitioner cannot be construed to be proceeding based on no evidence. In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of punishment at Annexure 2 and Annexure 5 to the writ application. (iv). So far as contention of the petitioner that the petitioner has been acquitted in criminal case, it would be pertinent to note here that the departmental proceeding and criminal proceeding are quite distinct to each other and in the case of departmental proceeding, preponderance of probability is the paramount consideration to fasten guilt on the delinquent but in the case of criminal proceeding the yardstick is to prove beyond all reasonable doubt. Moreover, it is well settled proposition of law that acquittal in criminal appeal will not ipso facto entitle the petitioner for reinstatement in services. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its illuminative decision rendered in case of “Deputy Inspector General of Police & Anr. Vs. S. Samuthiram” as reported in (2013) 1 SCC 598 has thrown light on the subject. It would be appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the decision referred to above (supra) at paragraph 26 and 27: “26. As we have already indicated, in the absence of any provision in the service rules for reinstatement, if an employee is honourably acquitted by a criminal court, no right is conferred on the employee to claim any benefit including reinstatement. Reason is that the standard of proofs required for holding a person guilty by a criminal court and the enquiry conducted by way of disciplinary proceeding is entirely different. Reason is that the standard of proofs required for holding a person guilty by a criminal court and the enquiry conducted by way of disciplinary proceeding 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. It is settled law that the strict burden of proof required to establish guilt in a criminal court is not required in a disciplinary proceedings and preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. There may be cases where a person is acquired for technical reasons or the prosecution giving up other witnesses since few of the other witnesses turned hostile, etc. In the case on hand the prosecution did not take steps to examine many of the crucial witnesses on the ground that the complainant and his wife turned hostile. The court, therefore, acquitted the accused giving the benefit of doubt. We are not prepared to say that in the instant case, the respondent was honourably acquitted by the criminal court and even if it is so, he is not entitled to claim reinstatement since the Tamil Nadu Service Rules do not provide so. 27. We have also come across cases where the service rules provide that on registration of a criminal case, an employee can be kept under suspension and on acquittal by the criminal court, he be reinstated. In such cases, the reinstatement is automatic. There may be cases where the service rules provide that in spite of domestic enquiry, if the criminal court acquits an employee honourably, he could be reinstated. In other words, the issue whether an employee has to be reinstated in service of not depends upon the question whether the service rules contain any such provision for reinstatement and not as a matter of right. Such provisions are absent in the Tamil Nadu Service Rules. On this score also, the case of the petitioner does not merit consideration by this Court.” 9. By now it is well-settled that in a departmental proceeding inspite of opportunity granted if the delinquent-employee does not participate it is lawful for the departmental authority to pass an appropriate order of punishment against the delinquent-employee [refer, “Major U.R. Bhatt Vs. Union of India” reported in AIR 1962 SC 1344 ]. 10. By now it is well-settled that in a departmental proceeding inspite of opportunity granted if the delinquent-employee does not participate it is lawful for the departmental authority to pass an appropriate order of punishment against the delinquent-employee [refer, “Major U.R. Bhatt Vs. Union of India” reported in AIR 1962 SC 1344 ]. 10. Having examined the records of the case and considered the rival contentions in the light of the aforesaid principles, we find no error in the impugned order dated 23.09.2016 passed in W.P.(S) No.107 of 2010 and, accordingly, L.P.A No.285 of 2017 is dismissed.