ORDER : K. Manmadha Rao, J. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “…..to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandaus declaring the impugned Proc C.No.06/OEPR/A7/2014 dated 16.10.2017 issued by the 1st respondent and its consequential orders passed by the 2nd respondent on appeal petition vide Proc.C.No.106/Appl/2019, R.O.O.No.684/2019, dated 14.8.2019 and the orders passed in Revision Petition vide D.Dis.No.599/T4/2021, dated 20.7.2022 as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the law on the subject and set aside the same and consequently hold that the petitioner is entitled for treating the entire period from the date of dismissal i.e., from 16.3.2011 to 25.6.2013 AN as on duty with all consequential and attendant benefits and pass….” 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Police Constable (AR). He was arrested by the Narasaraopet I Town P.S on 13.03.2011 on the ground that he is indulging in cricket betting and registered a case in Cr.No.47 of 2011 under Section 3 and 4 of A.P. Gaming Act and produced before the Hon’ble Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Narasaraopet. Thereafter, the 1st respondent directed the petitioner to submit his explanation. Accordingly the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 28.4.2014. However, without considering the same the 1st respondent issued proceedings vide No.2221/A7/2011 DONo.468/2011 dated 25.3.2011. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred O.A.No.2999 of 2011 before the Hon’ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The Tribunal vide order dated 04.05.2011 has granted interim direction suspending the orders dated 25.03.2011. Later, the 2nd respondent issued Memo C.No.18/G1/2011 dated 12.04.2012 requesting the 1st respondent to take further action either by filing the writ petition or implementing the APAT orders as deems fit. Meanwhile, the Hon'ble I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, after completion of trial, acquitted the petitioner from the criminal charge holding that the prosecution failed to produce any piece of paper to show that the said building/room in which cricket betting was taken place, was in the name of petitioner. Basing on the above judgment, the petitioner made an appeal dated 18.9.2012 for reinstatement of duty by duly submitting that he was unjustly dismissed from service in contravention of the CCA Rules. Basing on the above judgment, the petitioner made an appeal dated 18.9.2012 for reinstatement of duty by duly submitting that he was unjustly dismissed from service in contravention of the CCA Rules. On considering the same, the 2nd respondent issued Proc.C.No.18/G1/2011, R.O.O. No.4162023 dated 13.6.2013 setting aside the punishment of dismissal and directed to reinstate the petitioner to duty with instructions to the 1st respondent to conduct fresh oral enquiry under Rule 20 for the alleged delinquency of absence for duty and indulging in cricket betting. While so, the 1st respondent issued C.No.6/PR/2014, dated 14.4.2014 proposing to hold departmental enquiry against the petitioner and framed a charge that he was arrested at 10.30 PM on 12.3.2011. Later, an enquiry was conducted into the matter in contravention of Rule 20 of CCA Rules and submitted his minutes to the 1st respondent holding that the charges are held proved vide C.No.16/OEPR/ DSC Crime/2014 dated 23.3.2016. It is further submitted that, before submitting representation of the petitioner, the 1st respondent issued Proc.No.06/OE-PR/A7/2014, dated 16.10.2017 awarding the punishment of “Postponement of increments for a period of ONE year with effect on future increment and pension and absence period from 12.3.2011 to 15.3.2011 and the out of employment period from 16.3.2011 to 25.6.2013 AN is treated as leave without pay. Against the above punishment, the petitioner preferred an appeal and review petitions and the same were rejected vide Proc No.106/Appl/2019, R.O.O.No.684/2019 dated 14.8.2019 and D.Dis No.599/T4/2021, dated 20.7.2022 without properly considering the case of the petitioner. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard Sri Somisetty Ganesh Babu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents. 4. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents made in the petition, submits that, admittedly the evidences and witnesses in criminal case as also the departmental enquiry are one and the same. 3. Heard Sri Somisetty Ganesh Babu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents. 4. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents made in the petition, submits that, admittedly the evidences and witnesses in criminal case as also the departmental enquiry are one and the same. Therefore, conducting OE., for the self same charge which is not proved by the competent criminal court and imposing punishment is not at all justified in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Cap.M.Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Limited and others AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 1416 and also other judgments reported in State of Punjab vs Bahadur Singh & Others 2006 (4) SCJ 1 and in AFJAL IMAM v. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS 2011(5) ALT 777 - para-11 and the Hon’ble High Court in catena of cases. He further submits that by following the aforesaid law on the subject, the Hon’ble High Court rendered judgment in WP No.24286 of 2005 dated 1.12.2014 setting aside the punishment imposed against the petitioner in the aforesaid petition. Therefore, in the present case on hand also, the charge both in criminal case and the departmental proceedings are one and the same and the witnesses are also one and the same as such holding that the charges against the applicant are held proved and imposing punishment without considering the judgment of the learned Criminal Court is highly illegal and arbitrary. Hence, learned counsel requests this Court to pass similar order in this case also. He further submits that, in view of the aforesaid law on the subject, the orders issued by the 1st respondent are liable to be set aside since the applicant has acquitted from the very same charge in criminal case. 5. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader opposed for allowing the writ petition on the same lines and prayed to dismiss the same. 6. 5. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader opposed for allowing the writ petition on the same lines and prayed to dismiss the same. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and in view of the fact that all the witnesses on whom the Enquiry Officer placed reliance did not support the case of the prosecution when they were examined as witnesses in the criminal Court prior to their examination before the Enquiry officer and also when once charges and witnesses in both criminal prosecution and departmental proceedings are one and the same, the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority ought to have taken into consideration the acquittal of the accused in the criminal case. The petitioner herein was acquitted honourably and completely exonerated of the charge levelled against him. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in Proc C.No.06/OEPR/A7/2014, dated 16.10.2017 issued by the 1st respondent and its consequential orders passed by the 2nd respondent on appeal petition vide Proc C.No.106/Appl/2019 R.O.O.No.684/2019 dated 14.8.2019 and the orders passed in Revision Petition vide D.Dis.No 599/T4/2021 dated 20.7.2022 are hereby set aside. No costs. 8. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.