JUDGMENT : 1. The matter has been heard through video conferencing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. They have no complaint about any audio and visual quality. 2. The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause-10 of Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 02.11.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.1534 of 2020, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition has been dismissed by declining to interfere with the order dated 07.04.2020, by which, prayer for reinstatement of the writ petitioner in service with all consequential benefits on the ground of his acquittal in the criminal case being R.C. Case No.10(A)/2014(D) has been rejected. 3. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, are as hereunder:- It is the case of the writ petitioner that while he was working as Bill Clerk in Moonidih Coal Washery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (in short “M/s. BCCL”), a written complaint was made to the CBI, Dhanbad on 08.09.2014 by one Niranjan Mahto, a fitter in Moonidih Coal Washery of M/s. BCCL alleging that the writ petitioner has made a demand of gratification of Rs.500/- for preparing his arrear bill of Rs.25,000/-. The CBI, Dhanbad, based upon the above complaint, lodged an FIR being R.C. Case No.10(A)/2014(D) on 08.09.2014 for commission of offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The CBI, Dhanbad has constituted a trap team, in which, the writ petitioner was trapped and arrested on 09.09.2014. The investigation was carried out and on its conclusion, charge-sheet was submitted on 07.11.2014 for commission of offence under Sections 7/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and accordingly, trial was commenced against the writ petitioner. The respondent BCCL has also instituted a departmental proceeding by issuing a memorandum of charge on 22.04.2015 leveling therein the allegation, which according to the writ petitioner, exactly the same to the charges contained in the chargesheet of pending criminal case. The departmental proceeding culminated and in consequence upon the same, an order was passed on 20.04.2017, by which, the respondent BCCL imposed a penalty of dismissal of the writ petitioner from service. The departmental proceeding culminated and in consequence upon the same, an order was passed on 20.04.2017, by which, the respondent BCCL imposed a penalty of dismissal of the writ petitioner from service. Further, the case of the writ petitioner is that after passing of the order of dismissal in the departmental proceeding, the criminal trial against the writ petitioner was concluded, in which, the writ petitioner was acquitted from the charges vide judgment dated 29.02.2020, passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Dhanbad. The writ petitioner in consequence upon acquittal in the criminal case, has made representation before the respondent BCCL for reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits but the same was rejected on 07.04.2020 on the ground that the criminal case registered by the CBI and the departmental enquiry conducted by the respondent BCCL are entirely different and the judgment of the criminal case is not binding on the domestic enquiry. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the said order, has filed a writ petition for quashing of the order dated 07.04.2020 being W.P.(S) No.1534 of 2020, wherein, the prayer has been made for his reinstatement with all consequential benefits on the ground of his acquittal in criminal case, has been rejected. The writ petitioner has taken the ground before the learned writ Court that he has been dismissed from service pursuant to the departmental proceeding on the alleged charge of illegal gratification of Rs.500/-. Further, the ground has been taken that on the same set of allegation, a criminal case was also instituted prior to initiation of departmental proceeding, wherein, the writ petitioner has been honourably acquitted and as such, deserves to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. The respondent BCCL had appeared and taken the ground that oral evidence in the departmental proceeding and criminal proceedings were different. The reference of enquiry report of the departmental proceeding dated 18/20.02.2017 has also been made, wherein, it transpires that there were four Management witnesses who were examined and cross-examined and from the detailed judgment dated 29.02.2020, passed in R.C. Case No.10(A)/2014(D), it transpires that in the criminal proceeding, there were altogether 14 prosecution witnesses and amongst these 14 prosecution witnesses, all four management witnesses were examined and cross-examined. Further, ground has been taken that documentary evidence in the departmental proceeding and criminal proceeding, were different and therefore, the claim of the writ petitioner for quashing of the order dated 07.04.2020, is not worth to be considered. Learned Single Judge, on appreciation of rival submissions advanced on behalf of the respective parties, has dismissed the writ petition by declining to interfere with the order dated 07.04.2020, against which, the present intra-court appeal has been preferred. 4. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Senior Counsel assisted with Mr. Abhishek Sinha, for the writ petitioner has submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the fact while dismissing the writ petition. In spite of honourable acquittal of the writ petitioner from the criminal charges, the request of reinstatement, which has been rejected vide impugned order ought to have been interfered with by the learned Single Judge on the ground, that the departmental proceeding as also the criminal proceeding since was based upon the identical facts and once the writ petitioner has been acquitted from the criminal charges, there is no reason not to reinstate the writ petitioner in service, since this aspect of the matter has not duly been considered by the learned Single Judge, therefore, impugned order requires interference. It is further urged that both the proceedings i.e., criminal as also the departmental proceeding, since were based upon the identical evidences, when the charges have not been found to be proved in the criminal case and in consequence thereupon the writ petitioner has been acquitted from the criminal charges, there was no occasion for the respondent BCCL, to retain the order of dismissal in operation. But this aspect of the matter has also not been considered by the learned Single Judge. 5. While on the other hand, Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent BCCL has defended the order passed by the learned Single Judge by refuting the contention agitated on behalf of the learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner, as above, by making submission that the parameters to consider the case against the public servant in the departmental proceeding and the judicial proceeding, are quite different having different parameters to adjudge the culpability of the concerned public servant. Admittedly, FIR was instituted against the writ petitioner and subsequent thereto, departmental proceeding was also initiated in which, the writ petitioner has been provided with adequate opportunity. He has been found fit to be dismissed from service and accordingly, based upon the finding recorded by the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority has dismissed the writ petitioner from service. Even if, after the order of dismissal, the writ petitioner has been acquitted from the criminal charges, the same will not influence the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority, reason being that the departmental proceeding and the criminal proceeding, since are based upon two different parameters, i.e., in the departmental proceeding, the public servant can be dealt with on the principle of preponderance of probability and in the judicial proceeding while considering conviction, the principle of proving the charge beyond all reasonable doubt, would be required to be there. Since, the writ petitioner has been proceeded departmentally on the basis of the allegation of acceptance of gratification of Rs.500/-, for which, a regular departmental proceeding was initiated, in which, the writ petitioner has cross-examined the witnesses. The enquiry officer has eventually found the charges proved against the writ petitioner and on its acceptance, the order of dismissal has been passed. Even though, the writ petitioner has been acquitted from the criminal charges, however, taking into consideration the principle of applicability of the proving of charge beyond all reasonable doubt, so far as it relates to judicial proceeding, the order of acquittal will not come in the way of order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority on conclusion of departmental proceeding. According to the learned counsel, the learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration this factual as also the legal aspect, is correct in not interfering with the impugned order. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also considered the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 7. This Court, deems it fit and proper to refer some undisputed facts before entering into the legality and propriety of the impugned order. The writ petitioner was working as Bill Clerk in Moonidih Coal Washery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. A written complaint was made by one Niranjan Mahto for demand of gratification of an amount of Rs.500/-. 7. This Court, deems it fit and proper to refer some undisputed facts before entering into the legality and propriety of the impugned order. The writ petitioner was working as Bill Clerk in Moonidih Coal Washery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. A written complaint was made by one Niranjan Mahto for demand of gratification of an amount of Rs.500/-. Such complaint was made before the CBI, Dhanbad, based upon which, an FIR being R.C. Case No.10(A)/2014(D) was instituted and thereafter, a trap team was constituted, which had caught the writ petitioner red-handed. The investigation was conducted in the criminal case, charge-sheet was submitted and thereafter, the trial commenced. In the midst of the aforesaid judicial proceeding, the respondent Management has initiated a departmental proceeding by issuing a memorandum of charge dated 22.04.2015 levelling the following allegations:- “The undersigned proposes to hold an inquiry against Shri Ashok Kumar Nonia, Spl. Grade Clerk working as Bill Clerk, Moonidih Coal Washery, BCCl, under clause 27.2 of Certified Standing Order applicable on the employees of BCCL. The substance of Imputations of misconduct or misbehavior in respect of which the inquiry is proposed to be held is set out in the enclosed statement of Article Charges (Annexure- 1). A statement of the Imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of Articles of Charge is enclosed (Annexure-II). A list of Documents by which, and list of Witnesses whom, the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained are also enclosed (Annexure-III and IV). Shri Ashok Kumar Nonia is directed to submit within 15 days of the receipt of this memorandum a written statement of his defence and also to state whether he desires to be heard in person. He is informed that an inquiry will be held only in respect of those articles of charges as an admitted. He should, therefore, specifically admit or deny each article of charge. Shri Ashok Kumar Nonia is further informed that if he does not submit his written statement defence on or before that date specified in para 2 above or does not appear in person before the Inquiry Authority or otherwise fails or refuses to comply with the applicable rules, may be issued in pursuance the inquiry against him ex-parte. Shri Ashok Kumar Nonia is further informed that if he does not submit his written statement defence on or before that date specified in para 2 above or does not appear in person before the Inquiry Authority or otherwise fails or refuses to comply with the applicable rules, may be issued in pursuance the inquiry against him ex-parte. The receipt of the memorandum may be acknowledged.” The writ petitioner was asked to appear before the enquiry officer, in pursuant thereto, he has appeared before the enquiry officer and defended himself by examining/cross-examining the witnesses. The statement of Article of Charges, appended as annexure-3 to the memo of appeal reads as under:- “That Shri Ashok Kumar Nonia, Spl. Grade Clerk while functioning as Bill Clerk, Moonidih Coal Washery during 2014 committed grave misconduct as much as demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.500/- from Shri Niranjan Mahato working a Fitter (Instrumentation) at Moonidih Coal Washery for preparation of arrear bill consequent upon his promotion from Cat-IV to Cat-V with effect from 01.01.2008. Thus, by the above act Shri Ashok Kumar Nonia, failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and committed misconduct under clause 26.1.13 of the certified standing order applicable on the workmen of BCCL.” The enquiry officer has found the charge proved against the writ petitioner and forwarded the same before the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority has accepted the report of the enquiry officer and after following the due procedure, i.e., after issuing the second show cause notice has passed the order of dismissal from service. The criminal case, thereafter, was concluded and vide judgment dated 29.02.2020, the writ petitioner was acquitted from the charges. The writ petitioner, on acquittal from the criminal case has made a representation before the authority concerned for his reinstatement in service but the same was rejected vide order dated 07.04.2020 on the ground that the parameter to be followed in the departmental and the judicial proceeding, is quite different. The aforesaid order of rejection dated 07.04.2020 was assailed by filing the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.1534 of 2020, wherein, the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the same, against which, the present intra-court appeal has been preferred. The aforesaid order of rejection dated 07.04.2020 was assailed by filing the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.1534 of 2020, wherein, the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the same, against which, the present intra-court appeal has been preferred. The writ petitioner has raised the question that once he has been acquitted from the criminal case, the order of dismissal passed in the departmental proceeding ought to have been recalled by passing the order of reinstatement in service but that having not done, the gross illegality has been committed and this aspect of the matter has also not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent BCCL has defended the order passed by the learned Single Judge taking the plea that the parameter to be followed in the departmental and judicial proceeding, since is quite different and as such, merely because the writ petitioner has been acquitted from the criminal charges, there cannot be automatic recall of the order of dismissal which has been passed in the regular departmental proceeding initiated in terms of the Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules. 8. The issue, therefore, requires to be answered by this Court about the impact of acquittal in the criminal case upon the order of dismissal passed by the employer on conclusion of regular departmental proceeding, in pursuant to the Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978. 9. But before answering the issue, it requires to refer herein the imputation of charge as also the allegation levelled against the writ petitioner in the FIR. 10. Admittedly, as would appear from the imputation of statement, as quoted and referred hereinabove, wherein, the allegation has been levelled that the writ petitioner has failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and committed misconduct under clause 26.1.13 of the certified standing order applicable on the workmen of BCCL. An FIR has been instituted against the writ petitioner for acceptance of gratification to the tune of Rs.500/- and thereby, offence under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 has been committed. An FIR has been instituted against the writ petitioner for acceptance of gratification to the tune of Rs.500/- and thereby, offence under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 has been committed. Thus, it is evident that the allegation levelled against the writ petitioner as per the imputation of charge as contained in the memorandum of charge is to the effect that he has failed to maintain absolute integrity, while on the other hand, in the FIR the allegation has been levelled about the demand of gratification to the tune of Rs.500/-, thereby, the offence alleged to have been committed under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988. Thus, it is evident that allegations, both in the FIR and the memorandum of charge in the departmental proceeding are quite different, it may be on the basis of the consequence of the aforesaid complaint made by the complainant for alleging therein for demand of gratification by the writ petitioner. The departmental proceeding has proceeded in order to prove the charge levelled against the writ petitioner about failing to maintain absolute integrity and thereby, the violation of clause 26.1.13 of the certified standing order. It is evident from the enquiry report that the witnesses have been produced for their examination and cross-examination. The writ petitioner has cross-examined the witnesses. It appears from the enquiry report that Niranjan Mahto, the complainant alleging of demand of gratification by the writ petitioner was examined as MW-I and has accepted before the enquiry officer about the authenticity of the aforesaid complaint. It further appears that the complainant has been examined by the writ petitioner. It appears from the enquiry report that several other witnesses have been examined and also cross-examined by the writ petitioner. The enquiry officer considering the statement made in the examination/cross-examination has found the charge proved against the writ petitioner. The finding recorded by the enquiry officer was forwarded before the disciplinary authority and on its acceptance, second show cause notice was issued to the writ petitioner and thereafter, being not satisfied with the response, the order of dismissal was passed on 20.04.2017. It requires to refer herein that the order of dismissal has not been challenged by the writ petitioner before the Court of law. It requires to refer herein that the order of dismissal has not been challenged by the writ petitioner before the Court of law. The writ petitioner, in the meanwhile, has been acquitted from the criminal case and thereafter, he has made a representation for his reinstatement in service which having been rejected vide order dated 07.04.2020, against which, the writ petition has been filed being W.P.(S) No.1534 of 2020. 11. The question will be that once the disciplinary authority has taken the decision on conclusion of departmental proceeding for dismissal of the writ petitioner from service based upon the finding recorded by the enquiry officer. The claim of the writ petitioner for his reinstatement merely because he has been acquitted in the criminal case, cannot be said to be justified demand made on the part of the writ petitioner, without questioning the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority. 12. The law is well settled that merely on acquittal in the criminal case, does not vitiate the departmental proceeding and the same does not entail the automatic reinstatement of the concerned public servant in service, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Deputy Inspector General of Police & Anr. Vrs. S. Samuthiram, (2013) 1 SCC 598 , laying down the proposition at paragraph-26 & 27, thereof to the effect that mere acquittal of an employee by the criminal court has no impact on the disciplinary proceeding initiated by the department. It has further been laid down that in absence of any provision in service rule for reinstatement, if an employee is honourably acquitted by the criminal court, no right is conferred on the employee to claim any benefit including reinstatement. For ready reference, paragraph-26 & 27 are quoted as under:- “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 proof 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. 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 acquitted 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 or 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.” 13. In the given facts of the case that the writ petitioner, on acquittal from the criminal case vide judgment dated 29.02.2020, made representation for reinstatement in service, meaning thereby, he has made such representation on the presumption that merely on account of acquittal in criminal case, there will be automatic reinstatement in service but as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Deputy Inspector General of Police & Anr. Vrs. S. Samuthiram (supra), there cannot be automatic reinstatement of the concerned public servant, if he has already been proceeded departmentally, in which, he has been punished with the punishment of dismissal from service. Vrs. S. Samuthiram (supra), there cannot be automatic reinstatement of the concerned public servant, if he has already been proceeded departmentally, in which, he has been punished with the punishment of dismissal from service. On acquittal from the criminal case, initiated against such public servant, there cannot be any automatic reinstatement, unless the rule permits to do so. In this case, no such rule has been produced before this Court that merely on account of acquittal from the criminal charge, there will be recall of the order of dismissal by reinstating the writ petitioner in service, therefore, the rejection of the claim of the writ petitioner for his reinstatement, cannot be said to suffer from error as the order of dismissal was passed by the respondent Management under the provision of certified standing order. The writ petitioner has been dismissed from service vide order dated 20.04.2017. That was never questioned by the petitioner prior to acquittal from the criminal case. Further, the law is well settled so far as the issue of simultaneous proceeding under the departmental or the judicial, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Depot Manager A.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vrs. Md. Yousuf Miya and Ors., (1997) 2 SCC 699 . The Apex Court has been pleased to make distinction between the purpose of departmental enquiry and criminal trial holding that purpose of departmental enquiry and the prosecution are two different and distinct aspects. The criminal prosecution is launched for an offence in violation of duty, the offender owes to the society or for breach of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. So crime is an act of commission in violation of law or omission of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. It would, therefore, be expedient that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible. It is not, therefore, desirable to lay down any guidelines as inflexible rules in which the departmental proceedings may or may not be stayed pending trial in criminal case against the delinquent officer. Each case requires to be considered in the backdrop of its own facts and circumstances. It is not, therefore, desirable to lay down any guidelines as inflexible rules in which the departmental proceedings may or may not be stayed pending trial in criminal case against the delinquent officer. Each case requires to be considered in the backdrop of its own facts and circumstances. There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental enquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the charge in the criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law. Offence generally implies infringement of public, as distinguished from mere private rights punishable under criminal law. When trial for criminal offence is conducted it should be in accordance with proof of the offence as per the evidence defined under the provisions of the Evidence Act. Converse is the case of departmental enquiry. The enquiry in departmental proceedings relates to conduct or breach of duty of the delinquent officer to punish him for his misconduct defined under the relevant statutory rules or law. That the strict standard of proof or applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded is a settled legal position. The enquiry in the departmental proceedings relates to the conduct of the delinquent officer and proof in such proceeding is not as strict as in an offence in criminal charge. It is seen that invariably the departmental enquiry has to be conducted expeditiously so as to effectuate efficiency in public administration and the criminal trial will take its own course. The nature of evidence in criminal trial is entirely different from the departmental proceedings. In the former, prosecution is to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the touchstone of human conduct. The standard of proof in the departmental proceedings is not the same as of the criminal trial. The evidence required in the departmental enquiry is not regulated by the Evidence Act. Under these circumstances, what is required to be seen is whether the departmental enquiry would seriously prejudice the delinquent in his defence at the trial in a criminal case. It is always a question of fact to be considered in each case depending on its own facts and circumstances. In other judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex court in State of Rajasthan Vs. B.K. Meena and Others, [ (1996) 6 SCC 417 ] the same view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex court. In Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. It is always a question of fact to be considered in each case depending on its own facts and circumstances. In other judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex court in State of Rajasthan Vs. B.K. Meena and Others, [ (1996) 6 SCC 417 ] the same view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex court. In Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Another [ (1999) 3 SCC 679 ], the Hon'ble Apex court, while dealing with the situation of simultaneous continuation of departmental proceeding vis-à-vis criminal proceeding, has arrived at following conclusions: (i). Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. (ii). If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. (iii). Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge-sheet. (iv). The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. (v). If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest. In Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. Vs. In Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. Vs. Girish V. and Others, [ (2014) 3 SCC 636 ], their Lordships of Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with the situation of continuation of simultaneous proceeding both in departmental as well as criminal proceeding, has been pleased to hold, taking note of all the earlier judgments rendered at paragraph 16 which reads as under:— “16.Suffice it to say that while there is no legal bar to the holding of the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal trial simultaneously, stay of disciplinary proceedings may be an advisable course in cases where the criminal charge against the employee is grave and continuance of the disciplinary proceedings is likely to prejudice their defence before the criminal court. Gravity of the charge is, however, not by itself enough to determine the question unless the charge involves complicated question of law and fact. The court examining the question must also keep in mind that criminal trials get prolonged indefinitely especially where the number of accused arraigned for trial is large as is the case at hand and so are the number of witnesses cited by the prosecution. The court, therefore, has to draw a balance between the need for a fair trial to the accused on the one hand and the competing demand for an expeditious conclusion of the ongoing disciplinary proceedings on the other. An early conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings has itself been seen by this court to be in the interest of the employees.” It is thus evident from the judgments referred herein above that there is no bar in simultaneous continuation of departmental proceeding with criminal proceeding as each and every case has to be adjudged on the related facts of the case. 14. In the given facts of the case, admittedly, the writ petitioner has been dismissed from service and he has accepted the order of dismissal which was passed on 20.04.2017. When he was acquitted in the criminal case vide judgment dated 29.02.2020, he submitted a representation on 11.03.2020, as would appear from Annexure-8 to the paper-book of this memo of appeal, seeking reinstatement from the date of dismissal with all consequential benefits, meaning thereby, from the date of order of dismissal i.e., 20.04.2017 till the filing of application for reinstatement on the ground of acquittal in the criminal case. He has accepted the order of dismissal from service and even thereafter, he has not chosen to challenge the order of dismissal dated 20.04.2017 rather by filing the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.1534 of 2020, he only has chosen to challenge the order of rejection of reinstatement in service and along with that the prayer for quashing of the order of dismissal has been made, as would appear from paragraph-1(iv) to the writ petition. Therefore, the conduct of the writ petitioner in not assailing the order of dismissal on its own merit rather challenging the same, when his claim for reinstatement in service has been rejected, cannot be said to be a proper approach of the writ petitioner. It further requires to refer herein by making comparative assessment of the charges levelled in the FIR and in the memorandum of charge contained therein the statement of imputation from which, it is evident that the charge levelled against the writ petitioner is to the effect of commission of demand of gratification attracting the ingredients of commission of offence under Section 7/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988, while on the other hand, the allegation levelled in the memorandum of charge as under the statement of imputation pertains to failing in maintaining absolute integrity and accordingly as the same violates the clause 26.1.13 of the certified standing order. Therefore, the nature of charges levelled in the FIR as also in the memorandum of charge pertaining to departmental proceeding cannot be said to be same and similar. 15. There is no dispute about the settled position of law that the departmental inquiry and the criminal proceeding based upon two different parameters, in the departmental proceeding, the proof of charges depends upon the preponderance of probability, while on the other hand, proof of criminal charges depends upon the prosecution producing proof beyond reasonable doubt relating to the culpability of the appellant. As such, the contention which has been raised that since the writ petitioner has been acquitted from the criminal case, the order of reinstatement automatically ought to have been passed by the authority concerned, which according to the considered view of this Court, cannot be said to be acceptable. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Avinash Sadashiv Bhosale Vrs. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Avinash Sadashiv Bhosale Vrs. Union of India & Ors., (2012) (13) SCC 142, wherein, at paragraph-55, it has been laid down as under:- “55. In view of the aforesaid legal principles enunciated and reiterated by this Court, we cannot accept that because the appellant had been prosecuted, the departmental proceedings could not have been continued simultaneously. As pointed out by Mr Dwivedi, the charges against the appellant in the criminal trial related to the commission of criminal offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 201 of the Penal Code. The proof of criminal charges depended upon prosecution producing proof beyond reasonable doubt relating to the culpability of the appellant along with other persons. In the departmental proceedings, the basic charge was that the appellant whilst posted as a Branch Manager of Washi Turbhe Branch, failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank and acted in a manner unbecoming of a bank officer. The aforesaid charge clearly related to the manner in which the appellant performed the duties as the Manager of the branch of the Bank. It had nothing to do with any criminal liability attaching to such conduct.” 16. This Court after having discussed the factual as also the legal aspect as hereinabove, has gone across the order passed by the learned Single Judge and found therefrom that the learned Single Judge, after appreciating the principle of initiation of departmental as also the judicial proceeding and its impact, has refused to interfere with the order of rejection dated 07.04.2020, which according to our considered view, cannot be said to suffer from an error. 17. In the result, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.