JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. 2. The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the termination Order No. V-15014/CISF/BARC-TAPS/DISC/07/854 dated 01.03.2007 (Annexure-3) passed by the Commandant, CISF, BARC-TAPS, Tarapur, District-Thane, Maharashtra (Respondent No.5) and also for a direction upon the respondents to re-instate the petitioner under them with all consequential benefits including full back wages payable to the petitioner. 3. The case of the petitioner is that on 15.11.2005, he appeared for recruitment on the post of Constable/GD in CISF and successfully cleared all the tests for recruitment and pursuant thereto an appointment letter for the post of Constable/GD in CISF was issued and accordingly, the petitioner joined his service on 18.03.2006 under the respondents. The further case of the petitioner is that when the petitioner was on probation period of two years, his services was abruptly terminated vide Order No.V-15014/CISF/BARC-TAPS/DISC/07/854 dated 01.03.2007 which was served to the petitioner on 02.03.2007. Thereafter, an F.I.R being B.S. City P.S. Case No. 160/2007 dated 25.04.2007 for the offences under Sections 468, 469, 419, 420, 120B of IPC was also lodged against the petitioner. The further case of the petitioner is that during pendency of this writ petition, after a full-fledged trial, the petitioner has been acquitted in the aforesaid criminal case vide judgment dated 11.04.2017 passed in G.R. Case No. 555/2007 (Tr. No. 938/2017) by the learned A.C.J.M, Bokaro. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has not been gainfully employed anywhere since the date of his termination from services till date. He further contended that the termination of the services of the petitioner was on the allegations that he got himself recruited as Constable by fraudulent means. This is not a termination simplicitor, rather it is a termination punitive in nature and the allegations leveled against the petitioner amounts to stigma upon him which is apparent from the contents of letter dated 25.04.2007 (Annexure-4) and also from the contents of the letter dated 12.12.2012 (Annexure-15). As such, he must have been served with a notice/charge-sheet on civil side and an appropriate departmental enquiry for the charges leveled against him must have been initiated. But no such notice and/or departmental enquiry has ever been conducted by the respondents against the petitioner. As such, he must have been served with a notice/charge-sheet on civil side and an appropriate departmental enquiry for the charges leveled against him must have been initiated. But no such notice and/or departmental enquiry has ever been conducted by the respondents against the petitioner. On the question of stigma learned counsels relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dipti Prakash Banerjee Vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta and others as reported in (1999) 3 SCC 60 where the Hon’ble Court has held in para 35, 37 and 41 as under; “35. The above decision is, in our view, a clear authority for the proposition that the material which amounts to stigma need not be contained in the order of termination of the probationer but might be contained in any document referred to in the termination order or in its annexures. Obviously, such a document could be asked for or called for by any future employee or the probationer. In such a case, the order of termination would stand vitiated on the ground that no regular enquiry was conducted. We shall presently consider whether, on the facts of the case before us, the documents referred to in the impugned order contain any stigma. 37. On this point, therefore, we hold that the words amounting to “stigma” need not be contained in the order or termination but may also be contained in an order or proceeding referred to in the order of termination or in an annexure thereto and would vitiate the order of termination. Point 3 is decided accordingly. 41. We shall next take up the second aspect to stigma. We shall assume that the words used in the impugned order do not contain any stigma. We shall then refer to the three other letters to which the order makes a reference. In the first letter dated 30-04.1996, we do not find anything objectionable. Coming to the next letter, we however find that para (iii) refers to the scuffle between the appellant and one P.Chakraborty regarding which the appellant made a complaint on 28-5-1996. An Enquiry Committee is said to have been appointed and it gave a report. The extract from the report of the Committee dated 15-7-1996 is found in the counter of the respondents. An Enquiry Committee is said to have been appointed and it gave a report. The extract from the report of the Committee dated 15-7-1996 is found in the counter of the respondents. The Enquiry Committee found the appellant’s “behavior reprehensible” and it confirmed that the appellant was “involved in a scuffle and did misdeeds like obtaining false signature”, and said that the appellant was “guilty” of inefficient performance or duty, irregular attendance without permission, rue and disorderly behavior and willful insubordination”. Whatever may be said about the other words, the words used in connection with the finding of the Enquiry committee about the scuffle and about the appellant obtaining false signatures, are, in our opinion, clearly in the nature of a stigma. Further, the Enquiry Committee said he must be “punished”. It did not say that proceedings for disciplinary action were to be initiated. Thus on the ground of “stigma” also, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.” He further contended that since the petitioner has already been acquitted by the competent Court from the charges leveled against him vide judgment dated 11.04.2017 and the very basis on which the allegations were made against the petitioner by the department, has ended into an order of acquittal as such, the petitioner has every right to be reinstated by the respondent. He further contended that from the termination order it clearly transpires that no notice was served to the petitioner and no regular enquiry was made, as such, the same is passed arbitrarily without following the principles of natural justice. In this regard, the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of V.P. Ahuja Vs. State of Punjab and Others, as reported in (2000) 3 SCC 239 where the Hon’ble Court has held at para 7 and 9 as under; “7. A probationer, like a temporary servant, is also entitled to certain protection and his services cannot be terminated arbitrarily, nor can those services be terminated in a punitive manner without complying with the principles of natural justice. 9. The entire case-law with respect to a “probationer” was reviewed by this Court in a recent decision in Dipti Prakash Banerjee V. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences. 9. The entire case-law with respect to a “probationer” was reviewed by this Court in a recent decision in Dipti Prakash Banerjee V. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences. This decision fully covers the instant case as well, particularly as in this case, the order impugned is stigmatic on the fact of it.” Relying upon the aforesaid judgments, learned counsel submits that a probationer, like a temporary servant is also entitled to certain protection and his services cannot be terminated arbitrarily. He further contended that admittedly, the petitioner was under training period at RTC, Bhilai and his height and chest were measured on 26.05.2006 in presence of two witnesses. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that copy of the Annexure-2 of writ petition was exhibited as Exhibit-1 in the criminal case in which he has already been acquitted; as such, the case of the respondent has been proved to be incorrect. He further submits that after the termination order and acquittal in the criminal case the petitioner had also filed a mercy appeal but the same was dismissed on the ground of latches. 6. Relying upon the aforesaid facts and arguments as well as judgments referred to hereinabove, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the respondent may be directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits. 7. A counter affidavit has been filed in the instant case, wherein it has been specifically stated that when the petitioner reported at RTC, Bhilai on 17.03.2006 for training, a board of officers were directed to conduct a physical measurement and checking of documents in respect of newly reported personnel by Addl. DIG, CISF RTC, Bhilai. During the physical measurement carried out by the said board, several discrepancies on the measurement and the written test in respect of the petitioner were noticed by the Board and accordingly the matter was reported to the Sr. Commandant, CISF Unit, FACT UDL by the Addl. DIG RTC Bhilai vide letter dated 24.03.2006. In the said letter, the details of discrepancies of the measurement and the written test were mentioned such as height of the petitioner was found to be 169 cms, whereas in the questionnaire from, individual recruitment record sheet and medical form, the height was mentioned as 179 cms. DIG RTC Bhilai vide letter dated 24.03.2006. In the said letter, the details of discrepancies of the measurement and the written test were mentioned such as height of the petitioner was found to be 169 cms, whereas in the questionnaire from, individual recruitment record sheet and medical form, the height was mentioned as 179 cms. It was also reported that on verifying the handwriting of the individual it was noticed that the actual handwriting did not tally with that of the answer sheet and both the handwritings were entirely different. In the said letter it was also mentioned that on enquiry from the petitioner he accepted that he did not write the answer sheet. However, he did not state who had written his answer sheet. Since the matter was very serious it was taken up with the AIG/ESTT CISF HQ New Delhi vide letter dated 04.05.2006 and pursuant thereto an enquiry was conducted in this case. The said enquiry officer had carried out physical measurement and written examination of the petitioner and submitted enquiry report as under. “On having gone through the statement of the witnesses, accused person and the documentary evidences, enquiry officer found that prima-facie a case of impersonation during examination for recruitment of Const./GD in CISF held at BSL Bokaro Unit on 15.11.2005, exists against Roll No. 5600044 Ajay Kumar, S/o Shri Raghunandan Prasad, Dhurwa, Distt.Ranchi, Jharkhand, who with the ulterior motive of getting selection in CISF as Const./GD, engaged somebody to impersonate him, by giving the written examination in place of him.” 8. However, to reach on a concurrent conclusion of the case, the enquiry officer had mentioned that the opinion of handwriting expert may also be taken. Pursuant to his recommendation, the matter was taken up with CFSL, CBI, New Delhi for scientific examination of the handwritings. Thereafter, the Director CFSL, CBI, New Delhi had submitted the expert opinion which is as under: “After going through the case and expert opinion of Director CFSL/CBI, the FHQ, New Delhi vide letter No. V-15015/TRG.3/AK(CT/UT) RTC (B)/2007/317 dated 22.01.2007 had intimated to the Principal, CISF RTC, Bhilai that- (i) The height of the individual was found 170 cms and not 179 cms as mentioned in questionnaire form, individual recruitment record sheet and medical form. (ii)The chest of the individual was found 80-85 cms and not 81-87 cms as mentioned in questionnaire form, individual records sheet and medical form. (ii)The chest of the individual was found 80-85 cms and not 81-87 cms as mentioned in questionnaire form, individual records sheet and medical form. (iii)On verifying the handwriting of the individual, it was noticed that the actual handwriting did not tally with the original answer sheet given at the time of recruitment. Both the handwritings were entirely different. Moreover, the answer sheet was not initialed by any of the supervisory office of CISF. 9. Learned ASG representing the respondent-CISF submits that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case it is crystal clear that the case of impersonation/malpractice had been established against the petitioner and as a result the competent authority took a decision that the process for termination of the petitioner be started at the earliest. He further submits that as per Rule 25 of CISF Rule-2001, there are three clauses for which services of a probationer can be terminated by the appointing authority, without assigning any reason on tendering one month’s notice or after giving one month’s pay in lieu of such notice which are as follows:- (a) For unsatisfactory service during the period of probation (b) Failure to pass the final examination of the initial training or repeat course (c) On the ground of furnishing false/incorrect information at the time of appointment. 10. Learned A.S.G further submits that in view of the provision enshrined in Sub Rule (02) of Rule-25 of the CISF Rule-2001, the petitioner had been terminated from service vide order dated 01.03.2007 which was received by the petitioner on 02.03.2007 and accordingly, his name was struck off from the strength of CISF Unit w.e.f 02.03.2007. It is true that the petitioner has been acquitted by the criminal Court, but the fact remains that he was not acquitted honorably rather he was acquitted by giving benefit of doubt. He further submits that though the petitioner filed a mercy appeal, but the same was dismissed on the ground of latches. 11. Learned A.S.G. further draws attention of this Court on paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit which indicates that in order to find out lapses of CISF officers in the said recruitment, a preliminary enquiry had been ordered by the competent authority which was conducted by the Commandant, CISF Unit BTPS, Bokaro and after the said preliminary enquiry it was ordered to initiate the departmental enquiry for major penalty against the following GOs. (i) Shri M Sreenivasan, Senior Commandant, (Retired) (ii) Shri J.H.Raj, Assistant Commandant, (Retired) (iii)Shri Jacob Koshy, Deputy Commandant, (Retired). 12. Learned counsel further submits that all the three officers have also been awarded punishment by the CISF. As such, the respondent-CISF has taken this matter very seriously. So far as the petitioner is concerned, the charges against him which has been proved in the departmental enquiry is very grave and has totally been proved even by the expert committee with respect to his handwriting etc and no leniency should be granted to this type of the persons who commits fraud at the time of the appointment itself. He further submits that the CISF is the disciplined service and no leniency can be adopted in this service. 13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the entire materials available on record it appears that the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal proceeding, however, from perusal of the judgment it appears that the accused was given benefit of doubt and he was not honorably acquitted. Further, it is settled proposition of law that acquittal in criminal case does not entail automatic reinstatement, since different standard of proof are applicable in criminal and departmental proceedings. The standard of proof required for holding a person guilty by a criminal court and the enquiry conducted by the 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. 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. In the case of Deputy Inspector General of Police and Another versus S. Samuthiram as reported in (2013)1 SCC 598 where the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in 23 as under “23. We are of the view that the mere acquittal of an employee by a criminal court has no impact on the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Department. The respondent, it may be noted, is a member of a disciplined force and non-examination of two key witnesses before the criminal court that is Adiyodi and Peter, in our view, was a serious flaw in the conduct of the criminal case by the prosecution. The respondent, it may be noted, is a member of a disciplined force and non-examination of two key witnesses before the criminal court that is Adiyodi and Peter, in our view, was a serious flaw in the conduct of the criminal case by the prosecution. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the possibility of winning over PWs 1 and 2 in the criminal case cannot be ruled out. We fail to see, why the prosecution had not examined Head Constable Adiyodi (No. 1368) and Peter (No. 1079) of Tenkasi Police Station. It was these two Head Constables who took the respondent from the scene of occurrence along with PWs 1 and 2, husband and wife, to Tenkasi Police Station and it is in their presence that the complaint was registered. In fact, the criminal court has also opined that the signature of PW 1 (complainant husband) is found in Ext. P-1 complaint. Further, the doctor, PW 8 has also clearly stated before the enquiry officer that the respondent was under the influence of liquor and that he had refused to undergo blood and urine tests. That being the factual situation, we are of the view that the respondent was not honourably acquitted by the criminal court, but only due to the fact that PW 1 and PW 2 turned hostile and other prosecution witnesses were not examined.” 14. In the case in hand it transpires that the respondents have taken utmost care before passing the order of termination and a full-fledged enquiry was conducted and even the documents were sent to CBI for seeking expert opinion by CFSL, CBI, Delhi for scientific examination of the handwriting. In my considered opinion, nothing more could have been done in such type of cases. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not apply in the instant case in as much as in the case of V.P. Ahuja (Supra) the petitioner was a probationer in Punjab Cooperative Cotton Marketing & Spinning Mills Federation Ltd. and in the case of Dipti Prakash Banerjee (supra) the petitioner was an Office Superintendent of Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Science, Calcutta and in both cases the respondents were not in the disciplined forces. In the instant case, the petitioner was appointed under CISF and as such, he will be governed by the CISF Rules and as aforesaid his termination has rightly been done as per Rule 25 of CISF Rules-2001 which stipulates three clauses for which services of a probationer can be terminated by the appointing authority, without assigning any reason on tendering one month’s notice or after giving one month’s pay in lieu of such notice. 15. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the discussions made herein above hereinabove, I do not find any infirmity in the termination order and as result thereof, the instant application is dismissed. The interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of.