JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings No.Na.Ka.8848/2008 Sa.Pa, dated 29.06.2010 whereby confirming the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.3/2005, dated 16.10.2008 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all attendant benefits and other back-wages.) 1. The punishment of dismissal from service imposed by the Management of the 2nd respondent / Co-operative Bank, which was confirmed by the Revisional Authority under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, in proceedings dated 29.06.2010, are under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner was working as Fertilizer Salesman in Brammadesam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank, Brammadesam, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District. The petitioner was placed under suspension with reference to certain serious irregularities and illegalities in financial matters. A charge memo was issued and an enquiry was conducted and based on the enquiry report, the 2nd respondent / Management issued the order of termination in proceedings dated 16.10.2008. 3. The petitioner states that the departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him based on the statutory enquiry report made under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. Simultaneously, surcharge proceedings were initiated to recover the financial loss occurred to the Cooperative Society under Section 87 of the Act and a criminal prosecution was also initiated through the Commercial Crime Investigation Wing of the Police Department. Against the order of termination dated 16.10.2008, the petitioner preferred a revision under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and the 1st respondent also failed to consider the grounds raised by the writ petitioner and confirmed the order removal from service in proceedings dated 29.06.2010. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the petitioner was no way connected with the financial irregularities as alleged in the charge memo. It was the Secretary, who was responsible for the financial irregularities to the tune of more than Rs.6 crores and the petitioner, being a Fertilizer Salesman, has no authority to sanction the loan and therefore, the punishment imposed is improper. No subsistence allowance was paid to the writ petitioner. It was the Secretary, who was responsible for the financial irregularities to the tune of more than Rs.6 crores and the petitioner, being a Fertilizer Salesman, has no authority to sanction the loan and therefore, the punishment imposed is improper. No subsistence allowance was paid to the writ petitioner. Hence, the writ petitioner filed W.P.No.40169 of 2005. This Court directed the 2nd respondent / Cooperative Society to pay subsistence allowance. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Contempt Petition No.984 of 2006 and thereafter, the 2nd respondent paid the subsistence allowance and has given an undertaking that the Management will pay the further subsistence allowance. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the enquiry itself is vitiated on account of the non-payment of the subsistence allowance. The petitioner made a request to pay subsistence allowance and in spite of the request, the 2nd respondent has not paid and therefore, the order of dismissal from service is liable to be set aside. 6. Perusal of the entire affidavit filed in support of the writ petition except the ground relating to payment of the subsistence allowance. The petitioner has not contested the procedures followed by the respondents for conducting the enquiry. Perusal of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority in proceedings dated 16.10.2008, the same reveals that the allegation is relating to misappropriation of funds of the Cooperative Society. The total misappropriation of the funds of the Cooperative Society, is running to more than Rs.5 crores and all such financial irregularities, are relating to excess sanctioning of loan and other financial irregularities. On receipt of the explanation, the Disciplinary Authority appointed the Enquiry Officer, who in turn conducted the enquiry. The writ petitioner participated in the process of enquiry and defended his case. The Presenting Officer of the Cooperative Society / Management also filed the documents and the loan sanctioning details with reference to the allegations, were also filed before the Enquiry Officer, who in turn elaborately considered the manner in which such sanction of loans were made by the staff of the 2nd respondent / Co-operative Society. 7. Perusal of the order reveals that there were several financial irregularities and huge misappropriation of the funds of the Co-operative Society. 7. Perusal of the order reveals that there were several financial irregularities and huge misappropriation of the funds of the Co-operative Society. The order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is a speaking order and contains all the details regarding irregularities and the findings of the Enquiry Officer are also the reasons for imposing the punishment of dismissal from service. The Enquiry Officer held that the charges are proved against the writ petitioner. By accepting the enquiry report and after affording opportunity to submit objections on the enquiry report, the final order in the disciplinary proceedings was passed by the Management of the 2nd respondent / Society imposing the penalty of dismissal from service. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the surcharge proceedings were dropped against the writ petitioner. When the surcharge proceedings under Section 87 of the Act, was dropped, then the departmental disciplinary proceedings are also to be set aside. 9. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the first respondent and the learned counsel for the second respondent objected the said contentions raised on behalf of the writ petitioner, by stating that the writ petitioner was suspended from service. On initiation of departmental disciplinary proceedings, an enquiry was conducted by affording opportunity to the writ petitioner. The allegations against the writ petitioner are serious, as huge financial misappropriations and irregularities were noticed. 10. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the first respondent and the learned counsel for the second respondent made a submission that the Disciplinary Authority passed the final order dismissing the services of the writ petitioner in proceedings dated 16.10.2008 and the Revisional Authority confirmed the said order of punishment under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, in proceedings dated 29.06.2010. The present writ petition has been filed after a lapse of four years and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be rejected on the ground of latches. 11. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the first respondent and the learned counsel for the second respondent reiterated that the petitioner has involved in misappropriation of funds of the Society in connivance with the other officials. However, the Disciplinary Authority followed the procedures and conducted an enquiry and based on the findings of the enquiry report, imposed the penalty of dismissal from service. 12. However, the Disciplinary Authority followed the procedures and conducted an enquiry and based on the findings of the enquiry report, imposed the penalty of dismissal from service. 12. Regarding the ground raised by the petitioner that no subsistence allowance was paid, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the first respondent and the learned counsel for the second respondent, reiterated that subsistence allowance paid to the writ petitioner, which was clearly stated in the counter affidavit. At the initial stage, the writ petitioner has not complied with the conditions for sanctioning of the subsistence allowance. An employee suspended is entitled for subsistence allowance in the event of submitting 'No Employment Certificate' and his residing in the Head Quarters as per the order of suspension. Thus, for sanctioning of the subsistence allowance, the procedures are to be followed. However, the petitioner initially had not submitted any such certificate and filed the present writ petition before this Court. The respondents have given an assurance that the subsistence allowance will be paid and accordingly, it was paid. Thus, the contentions of the petitioner raised in this regard are incorrect. The punishment of dismissal from service was issued based on the proved charges, which are grave in nature and the Revisional Authority also considered the same. Thus, there is no irregularity in respect of the ground raised by the petitioner and also there is no irregularity in the matter of conduct of departmental disciplinary proceedings. Accordingly, the present writ petition is to be rejected. 13. This Court is of the considered opinion that mere acquittal in a criminal case or exoneration from the surcharge proceedings, would not be a ground to drop the departmental disciplinary proceedings or to set aside the punishment imposed in the departmental disciplinary proceedings. The standard of proof required under the Criminal Law and under the Co-operative Societies Act, are distinct and different. A Strict proof is required to convict a person under the Criminal Court of Law. However, no such strict proof is required to impose punishment under the departmental disciplinary proceedings. Preponderance of probabilities are sufficient to punish an employee under the Discipline and Appeal Rules. Certain technical grounds in the process may result in exoneration from the surcharge proceedings or acquittal in a criminal case on benefit of doubt. However, no such strict proof is required to impose punishment under the departmental disciplinary proceedings. Preponderance of probabilities are sufficient to punish an employee under the Discipline and Appeal Rules. Certain technical grounds in the process may result in exoneration from the surcharge proceedings or acquittal in a criminal case on benefit of doubt. However, those grounds cannot be applied in respect of the departmental disciplinary proceedings, which was conducted independently by following the procedures as contemplated by the Disciplinary Authority. 14. In the present case, the Disciplinary Authority independently conducted the enquiry, which cannot be compared with the trial to be conducted by the Criminal Court of Law or the suit to be conducted by the Competent Forum under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, in Surcharge proceedings. When the Departmental Disciplinary Authority has independently conducted an enquiry by affording opportunity to the charged official and every documents and evidences are considered by the Enquiry Officer and based on such enquiry report, the penalty of dismissal from service was imposed. Such an independent enquiry conducted in departmental disciplinary proceedings, cannot be compared with other trial nature proceedings, wherein strict proof is required. Thus, acquittal in a criminal case or dropping of surcharge proceedings, based on judicial order or based on certain procedural violations, cannot be compared with the departmental disciplinary proceedings as it was conducted independently and the punishment of dismissal from service was issued based on the proved misconduct or misappropriation or violations.