ORDER : T.Madhavi Devi, J. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of imposition of penalty of withholding of entire pension and Gratuity permanently of the deceased employee vide G.O.Ms.No.51 Transport, Roads and Buildings (VIG) Department dated 24.05.2012 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and also as contrary to the judicial pronouncements to the effect that the departmental enquiry could not have been conducted on the very same set of charges after acquittal of similar charges by the Criminal court and consequently to set aside the same and direct the respondent No.1 to release all the terminal benefits i.e., service pension Death cum retirement Gratuity, encashment of E.L., funeral charges, family pension w.e.f. 07.01.2015 onwards and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner Sri N. Srisailam was initially appointed in A.P.State Electricity Board as a Helper in the year 1970. Thereafter, he claims to have discontinued his employment in the then Electricity Board and got his name registered in the employment exchange and his name was sponsored by the employment exchange for appointment as LDC and he was appointed as LDC with the respondents in the year 1978. It is submitted that subsequently, he was promoted to various posts and ultimately he was working as Deputy Executive Engineer (R&B), NH Sub Division, Sadasivpet, Medak District. When a news item was published in the newspaper that the petitioner was working in the two places i.e., in the A.P.State Electricity Board and also in the Government Service for the past twenty two years. In view of the said report, a criminal case i.e., CC.No.146/2002, was registered against the petitioner before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tandur, Rangareddy District and disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against him by the respondent organization. It was alleged that the petitioner was relieved from Sadasivpet and he submitted his joining report before the Executive Engineer (R&B) Division, Siddipet on 09.07.2001, but the petitioner was not allowed to work. It was alleged that the petitioner was relieved from Sadasivpet and he submitted his joining report before the Executive Engineer (R&B) Division, Siddipet on 09.07.2001, but the petitioner was not allowed to work. It is further submitted that the petitioner submitted his joining report again on 25.07.2001 and obtained an acknowledgement and thereafter, vide proceedings dated 16.08.2001, the petitioner was kept under suspension, but he was not paid any subsistence allowance and vide memo dated 16.08.2002, it was proposed to hold an enquiry against the petitioner and a charge sheet was served against the petitioner and the petitioner claims to have submitted his written explanation on 23.09.2002 and thereafter, the departmental enquiry was conducted. It is submitted that even before an enquiry was conducted, the Criminal Court vide judgment dated 22.09.2005 acquitted him from all charges and the same was brought to the notice of the department, but the departmental enquiry was concluded holding the charges as proved against the petitioner and the Disciplinary authority has imposed the punishment of penalty of withholding of the entire pension and gratuity permanently. The petitioner had attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2007. It is submitted that the petitioner has made several representations for re-consideration of his case in the light of the acquittal in the Criminal Case and that there was no evidence whatsoever to prove that the petitioner has worked in both departments simultaneously. However, the same was not considered and therefore, the petitioner filed O.A.No.9582 of 2012 before the Tribunal and on abolition of the Tribunal, the same has been transferred to this Court and it is renumbered as W.P.(Tr).No.135 of 2017. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Helper in the Electricity Department in the year 1970 and thereafter, he was appointed in the Roads and Building Department in 1978 and worked thereunder up to the age of retirement i.e., on 30.06.2007. It is submitted that the allegation that the petitioner worked in two posts for 22 years is absolutely false and baseless. He submitted that the distance between these two places is eighty kilometers and it was humanly impossible for a person to be travelling between those two places and working in dual roles for a period of twenty two years. It is submitted that the allegation that the petitioner worked in two posts for 22 years is absolutely false and baseless. He submitted that the distance between these two places is eighty kilometers and it was humanly impossible for a person to be travelling between those two places and working in dual roles for a period of twenty two years. It is further submitted that all these facts and the evidence produced by the respondents have been considered by the Criminal Court to hold that there was no evidence that the petitioner has worked in both places at the same time for 22 years. It is further submitted that without taking the evidence considered by the Criminal Court into consideration, the disciplinary proceedings have concluded holding that the petitioner is guilty and have imposed the punishment of the penalty of withholding the entire pension and gratuity permanently. It is submitted that even during the course of suspension, the petitioner was never paid the subsistence allowance, which is in violation of Service Rules as well as the principles of natural justice and for this reason also the proceedings are vitiated. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in W.P.No.14633 of 2020 in support of his contention that where departmental proceedings have been initiated/instituted after the lapse of four years from the date on which the event of misconduct had taken place, such proceedings are not sustainable. He further placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Capt.M.Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Limited and Another , [(1993) 3 SCC 679] , for the proposition that when a person is acquitted of the Criminal Case and on the very same set of facts if the departmental proceedings were also initiated, then the judgment in the Criminal Case should be considered while disposing of the departmental proceedings. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also filed the written arguments in support of his oral arguments. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also filed the written arguments in support of his oral arguments. 6. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I, on the other hand, supported the contentions raised in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.3 stating that the details of the petitioner are recorded in the service books of both the department and on comparison of the service books of the petitioner from the Electricity Department and also from the R&B Department, it was observed that the petitioner was appointed as a Helper with the Electricity Department w.e.f. 08.04.1970 and his services were regularized on 23.05.1981 and he was also promoted as a Bill Collector w.e.f.23.05.1981 and was dismissed from service w.e.f. 28.01.2004. As regards his employment with R&B Department, the petitioner was appointed as a LDC/Junior Assistant w.e.f. 03.04.1978 and his services were regularized w.e.f. 03.04.1980 and was promoted as Senior Assistant w.e.f. 02.01.1991 and has attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2007 while he was still under suspension. It is also observed that he was granted automatic advancement scheme of his G.P., of Revenue Cashier and as SGP Junior Assistant, SGP Senior Assistant. It was also observed that the signatures of both the service books were tallied vide Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratories, Hyderabad, reprot vide DOC/523/2001, dated 29.11.2001. It was thus, proved beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner has worked in both the departments at the same time. The relevant service books were also filed along with the counter affidavit. 7. The Electricity Department was also impleaded as a party respondent and the learned standing counsel has also filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner was appointed and worked as a Helper in the Electricity Department and on coming to know about his dual employment, he was dismissed from service in the year 2004. Therefore, according to him, the petitioner seems to be the employee of the Electricity Board only till 2004. 8. Learned Government Pleader has placed reliance upon the following two judgments to bring out the distinction between the Disciplinary Proceedings and the Criminal Proceedings and submitted that disciplinary proceedings are independent of criminal proceedings and the outcome of criminal proceedings may not affect the disciplinary proceedings. (1) State Bank of India and Others Vs. P.Zadenga, (2023) 10 SCC 675 (2) B.Yellaiah Vs. State Bank of India, Hyderabad and Others, 2024 (2) ALD 726 (AP) 9. (1) State Bank of India and Others Vs. P.Zadenga, (2023) 10 SCC 675 (2) B.Yellaiah Vs. State Bank of India, Hyderabad and Others, 2024 (2) ALD 726 (AP) 9. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that it is not in dispute that the petitioner was initially appointed as a helper in the Electricity Department and subsequently, as a Junior Assistant in the R&B Department. Though the petitioner claims to have discontinued his services on being appointed in the R&B department, his service book mentions otherwise. In the service book of the Electricity Department, it is mentioned that his services were regularized in the year 1981 and he continued in service till the date of dismissal i.e., in the year 2004. Though the contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner that the distance between both the places was almost 80 kms., and that it was humanly impossible for the petitioner to travel between both the destinations every day in the morning as well as in the evening, this Court is of the opinion that it may be a case of impersonation and not attending by himself. It was not the period during which the Biometrics was available and the petitioner’s attendance was marked through the same every day. Though in the Criminal Court, the petitioner has been acquitted on the ground that the respondents have failed to prove that the petitioner has worked in both the departments and has thus cheated the department, this Court is of the opinion that in the disciplinary proceedings the preponderance of the probabilities play a major role. The contention of the respondents was that the petitioner worked in both the departments simultaneously. Looking at the scenario during which the petitioner is alleged to have worked in two places, there were not enough vehicles to enable the petitioner to travel back and forth on the very same day without the people noticing or observing it. Therefore, if it is to be presumed that the petitioner was in service of the Electricity Department till 2004, then the only presumption to be drawn is that some other person must have impersonated the petitioner in the said place. However, the same has not been brought on the record and therefore, it cannot be presumed so. Therefore, if it is to be presumed that the petitioner was in service of the Electricity Department till 2004, then the only presumption to be drawn is that some other person must have impersonated the petitioner in the said place. However, the same has not been brought on the record and therefore, it cannot be presumed so. In the criminal case, the burden is on the respondents to prove the guilt of the accused. Similarly, in the disciplinary proceedings also, burden is on the department to prove that the petitioner was involved in the offence of dual employment. As seen from the disciplinary authority orders, it has been held that the petitioner has failed to prove that he has not worked in both places at the same time. This is shifting the burden of proof on to the accused petitioner, which is against the principles of natural justice. Further, it is not the contention of the Electricity Department that the petitioner has been paid salary during the period when he was working with the R&B Department. So the only inference that can be drawn is that the petitioner has discontinued his services in the Electricity Department without any intimation and without noticing the same, the said department has not only promoted him but has continued him upto the date of dismissal. It is evident that the petitioner has worked in the R&B Department and has drawn salary therefrom but there is no averment by the Electricity Department of any payment of salary to the petitioner throughout the period. Therefore, this Court deems it fit and proper to direct the respondent No.2 to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of the judgment of the Criminal Court and grant his legal heirs the family pension in accordance with relevant rules. 10. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.