ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed praying this Court to issue order or direction in the nature of certiorari, to quash the Order dated 9.12.2016 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru [‘Tribunal’, for short] in Application No.9332/2003 which is produced at AnnexureA and grant such other order or direction as this Court deems fit in the circumstances. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent No.1 herein was working as Village Accountant of Lakkur Village in Malur Taluk, Kolar District and charges leveled against him was that he misused his official position by demanding illegal gratification from one S. Venkataramana Reddy for changing khata in respect of certain lands and he was subjected to trap and thereafter a case was registered against him under sections 7, 13[1][d] read with section 13[2] of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In pursuance of the trap, the Respondent No.2 herein has launched prosecution against the Respondent No.1 based on the report submitted by the Lokayukta, in terms of section 12[3] of the Lokayukta Act, 1984, by its order dated 5.5.1997 entrusting the enquiry to the Upalokayukta against Respondent No.1 under Rule 14A of CC & A Rules. The Deputy Registrar of Enquiries5 was appointed as ‘Inquiry Officer’ to conduct the enquiry who submitted a report that charges leveled against the Respondent No.1 herein was proved. Based on the said report, a recommendation was made to impose penalty of compulsory retirement. Hence, the disciplinary authority has issued show cause notice against the Respondent No.1 and the Respondent No.1 has given a reply to the second show cause notice and after considering the same, a detailed order has been passed by the petitioner herein, passing an order for compulsory retirement from service. The Respondent No.1 being aggrieved by the order of compulsory retirement from service, had approached the Tribunal in Application No.9332/2003. The Tribunal, after considering the material on record, set aside the order of compulsory retirement and further directed the State Government i.e., petitioner herein to reinstate the Respondent No.1 herein for duty and further directed to forthwith give him a posting within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Hence, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner, challenging the order of the Tribunal. 3. Hence, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner, challenging the order of the Tribunal. 3. The main ground urged in the petition is that the Tribunal has committed an error in not considering the material available before the Tribunal and failed to take note of the report given by the Inquiry Officer that the charges leveled against the Respondent No.1 herein has been proved. The Tribunal also failed to take note of the fact that the petitioner herein has considered the reply given by the Respondent No.1 herein and thereafter passed the order of compulsory retirement. The very finding of the Tribunal that reply has not been considered while passing the order is erroneous and hence it requires interference of this Court. 4. Learned HCGP Sri. Venkata Satyanarayan, appearing for the petitioner reiterates the grounds urged in the petition and further would contend that the order of the Tribunal is erroneous and in the final order passed by the petitioner, it reflects that the reply given by the Respondent No.1 herein has been considered and thereafter an order has been passed. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 would contend that the Tribunal, in detail, considered the grounds urged by the Respondent No.1 herein and further observed that since the acquittal of the applicant can be considered as honourable acquittal and the Tribunal while passing the order held that the petitioner has not considered the reply of the applicant to the show cause notice and hence held that there is merit in the application and allowed the same, setting aside the order of the petitioner. 6. Having considered the grounds urged by the petitioner and respondents and considering the impugned order of the Tribunal, the very observation made in paragraph12 of the order is against the material on record. On perusal of the order of the petitioner, it is specifically mentioned in paragraph3 of the order which is annexed as AnnexureA9 to this petition that the Respondent No.1 herein sought for dropping of the proceedings on the ground that he was acquitted in the criminal proceedings and inspite of the same being mentioned in the order, the Tribunal proceeded with an erroneous observation that the representation of the Respondent No.1 herein has not been considered. The petitioner also while passing the order discussed in paragraph4 of the order and given the reasons for accepting the report of the Enquiry Officer and thereafter passed the order dated 17.11.2003 for compulsory retirement. Having taken note of erroneous observation of the Tribunal and other reason given by the Tribunal is that acquittal order passed against the Respondent No.1 is honourable acquittal referring to the Judgment of ‘JOGINDER SINGH v. UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS’ [ (2015) 2 SCC 377 ] is not on the material available on record. It has to be noted that in the enquiry, witnesses who have been examined before the Enquiry Officer have supported the same and the Enquiry Officer had given a definite conclusion that the charges leveled against the Respondent No.1 was proved that he has received a sum of Rs.500/as advance out of Rs.2,000/as illegal gratification from the complainant. When such being the case, the Tribunal ought not to have come to the conclusion that it was honorable acquittal made in the criminal case. The Tribunal failed to take note of the fact that in a criminal case, it requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. In a case of departmental enquiry, it requires proof based on the preponderance of probabilities and not strict proof as in criminal proceedings and hence, the very approach of the Tribunal is erroneous and the acquittal is not an honourable acquittal and the same is benefit of doubt, hence we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has committed an error in setting aside the order of compulsory retirement and directing the petitioner to reinstate the Respondent No.1 forthwith. Hence, writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 9.12.2016 passed in Application No.9332/2003 by the Tribunal is hereby set aside. The Order passed by the petitioner dated 17.11.2003 is confirmed.