ORDER : 1. The petitioner has filed this petition impugning the order dated 14.5.2019 in a pending enquiry in No.LOK/INQ/274/2013/ARE7 before the second respondent. 2. The petitioner’s case is that because of certain complaints of corruption, the respondents not only laid charge sheet for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 but the competent authority also entrusted the departmental enquiry under Rule 14(A) of the Karnataka Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1957 (for short, ‘KCS(CCA)Rules’. The criminal proceeding in Special Case No.20/2012 is concluded in favour of the petitioner with the petitioner being acquitted of the offences. The petitioner, upon such acquittal, has filed an application for closure of the enquiry entrusted under Rule 14(A) of the KCS(CCA)Rules. The second respondent rejecting such application by the impugned order has concluded that the acquittal in the criminal proceedings would not ipsofactoabsolve the petitioner of the consequences in a departmental proceedings for misconduct and significantly, the departmental enquiry proceedings cannot be truncated midcourse merely because of the acquittal in the criminal proceedings. The second respondent has also reasoned that the application for closure of the proceedings is filed belatedly with ‘written brief’ submitted being under consideration in the enquiry. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is acquitted in the criminal proceedings because the complainant and other material witnesses turned hostile and these are the very same witnesses who are cited as witnesses in the enquiry. These witnesses will have to reiterate their testimony before the criminal Court and as such, no purpose would be served in continuing the departmental enquiry proceedings. Therefore, the application for closure of the proceedings is well made and the same should have been favourably considered by the second respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petition is rendered infructuous inasmuch as after the impugned order dated 14.5.2019, the enquiry is completed, findings recorded and recommendations made under Section 12 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 as required under the provisions of Rule 14(A) of the KCS(CCA) Rules. The learned counsel also refutes the submission by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition. 5. The learned counsel also refutes the submission by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition. 5. It is true that acquittal in criminal proceedings cannot lead to a favourable decision in departmental proceedings, and the materials placed in the departmental proceedings will have to be assessed by enquiry officer to decide on the delinquency subject to necessary exceptions as envisaged in law. Therefore, reasoning by the second respondent that the acquittal in criminal cases will not ipsofactoab solve the liability in the departmental enquiry does not suffer from any apparent error, nor such reason be called arbitrary or capricious justifying interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and as such, the petition requires to be disposed of. Further, it would be needless to observe that if indeed the enquiry proceedings have culminated in a recommendation as contemplated under the provision of Section 12 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, the petitioner shall be entitled to seek such remedy and rights as would be available in law without being prejudiced by the disposal of this writ petition. The petition is accordingly disposed of.