JUDGMENT : (N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.) Heard Mr. B.P. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL. 2. The petitioner, by way of instituting the present proceeding, has presented a challenge to an order dated 29.08.1995 passed by the Disciplinary Authority terminating his services in pursuance to a departmental proceeding initiated against him. 3. The petitioner herein was initially recruited as Chowkidar in the erstwhile Assam State Electricity Board in the year 1979. The petitioner thereafter came to be promoted to the post of Meter Reader w.e.f. 06.01.1984. The respondent authorities had required the petitioner, on 04.06.1991, to furnish a copy of the HSLC Examination certificate in original, issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam in order to verify his educational qualification as well as age. 4. The HSLC certificate on being produced by the petitioner, a doubt having arisen, the respondents got the HSLC certificate of the petitioner verified from the authorities of the Assam Board of Secondary Education, Assam. The certificate as produced by the petitioner on being verified was found to be not genuine and accordingly, the petitioner came to be placed under suspension. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a show-cause notice dated 15.12.1992 under Regulation 10 of the ASEB (General) Service Regulation, 1960. The Superintending Engineer, Bongaigaon Electrical Circle, vide order dated 20.03.1993, issued a charge-sheet in respect of the petitioner herein, inter-alia, alleging therein that the HSLC passed certificate as produced by him was found to be fake and the said fact was confirmed amongst others by the authorities of the Board of Secondary Education, Assam. The petitioner did not respond to the said show cause notice nor to the Charge-sheet as issued to him. Accordingly, an enquiry was ordered in the matter. The petitioner although was required to appear in the enquiry held, he refrained from appearing in the enquiry and accordingly the same was proceeded ex-parte. On conclusion of the Departmental Enquiry as held in the matter, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report. On conclusion of the said enquiry and submission of the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner proceeded to issue a second show-cause notice to the petitioner on 07.06.1993. On 19.05.1995, the said letter was duly received by the petitioner. 5. On conclusion of the Departmental Enquiry as held in the matter, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report. On conclusion of the said enquiry and submission of the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner proceeded to issue a second show-cause notice to the petitioner on 07.06.1993. On 19.05.1995, the said letter was duly received by the petitioner. 5. On the petitioner not submitting any response to the notices issued to him including the second show-cause notice, the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner, on examining the materials brought on record against the petitioner in the enquiry, vide order dated 29.08.1995, proceeded to hold that the charges levelled against the petitioner to have been established. Accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to impose upon the petitioner the penalty of “termination of Service”. Further the period of suspension of the petitioner was directed to be treated as dies non. 6. It is seen that the petitioner, after passing of the said order dated 29.08.1995 had not taken any steps in the matter to assail the same. It is to be noted that during the pendency of the departmental proceeding against the petitioner, the respondent authorities had also initiated a criminal proceeding against him. 7. A charge-sheet being filed in the matter and the trial, having been concluded, the Trial Court, vide judgment and order dated 31.12.2001 proceeded to convict the petitioner herein in the matter and sentenced him to suffer Simple Imprisonment for 6(six) months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-under Section 468 IPC in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month. The petitioner was also sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for 6(six) months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section under Section 420 IPC in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment of one month. The said sentences were directed to be run concurrently. 8. The petitioner, being aggrieved, instituted an appeal in the matter before the Court of ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon. The said appeal, on being considered, came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 30.12.2004 passed by the Appellate Court. The petitioner thereafter instituted a Criminal Revision petition, being Criminal Revision Petition No.148/2005 before this Court. 9. 8. The petitioner, being aggrieved, instituted an appeal in the matter before the Court of ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon. The said appeal, on being considered, came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 30.12.2004 passed by the Appellate Court. The petitioner thereafter instituted a Criminal Revision petition, being Criminal Revision Petition No.148/2005 before this Court. 9. This Court, upon examining the matter, vide judgment and order dated 01.08.2013, was pleased to allow the said Criminal Revision Petition No.148/2005 by interfering with the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court as well as that passed by the Appellate Court. The petitioner accordingly came to be acquitted of the offences under Sections 468/420 IPC and was ordered to be set at liberty. 10. In pursuance to the said judgment and order passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No.148/2005, the petitioner approached the respondent authorities by way of filing a representation dated 23.09.2013 praying for his reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits. 11. The said representation of the petitioner was considered by the respondent authorities and, vide communication dated 26.12.2013, the same came to be rejected on the ground that the service of the petitioner was already terminated vide order dated 29.08.1995 in pursuance to a departmental proceeding initiated against him. 12. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding before this Court in the year 2018. 13. Mr. B.P. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the criminal proceedings being so instituted against the petitioner basing on the same factual matrix as involved in the departmental proceedings so instituted and concluded against him, the decision passed by this Hon’ble Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.148/2005 acquitting the petitioner from the charges so framed against him in the criminal proceedings would have the effect of rendering the conclusions as arrived in the departmental proceedings to have been rendered null and void. It is submitted that the penalty as imposed upon the petitioner vide the order dated 29.08.1995 having been rendered unsustainable, the same would call for an interference from this Court. 14. Mr. It is submitted that the penalty as imposed upon the petitioner vide the order dated 29.08.1995 having been rendered unsustainable, the same would call for an interference from this Court. 14. Mr. B.P. Sinha, learned counsel, by referring to the additional affidavit filed in the matter by the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner could not have approached this Court assailing the penalty as imposed upon him in the departmental proceeding in view of the pendency of a criminal proceeding involving the same issue which was concluded only with the passing of the judgment dated 01.08.2013 by this Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.148/2005, acquitting the petitioner of the charges so framed against him therein. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioner having instituted the present proceedings, immediately after the passing of the judgment dated 01.08.2013 by this Court, after approaching the authorities seeking relief, no delay in instituting the present proceedings can be attributed to the petitioner herein. 15. Per contra, Mr. B. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL has submitted that the order of penalty having been passed by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 29.08.1995 and petitioner having been terminated from service with effect from the said date and the same not having been assailed by the petitioner for long 23 years, the petitioner cannot be permitted to present a challenge to the said order dated 29.08.1995 at this stage and the petition suffers from delay as well as laches which would require this Court to dismiss the same in limine. 16. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record. 17. It is an admitted position that the petitioner, in pursuance to a departmental proceeding, instituted against him, was imposed with the penalty of termination from service vide order dated 29.08.1995. The petitioner till the institution of the present proceedings in the year 2018, had not presented a challenge to the said penalty so imposed upon him in the departmental proceeding so initiated against him. The criminal proceeding so instituted against the petitioner although had initially resulted in conviction by the Trial Court, which was also upheld by the appellate court, however, he came to be acquitted from the criminal charges so framed against him by this Court vide judgment dated 01.08.2013 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.148/2005. 18. The criminal proceeding so instituted against the petitioner although had initially resulted in conviction by the Trial Court, which was also upheld by the appellate court, however, he came to be acquitted from the criminal charges so framed against him by this Court vide judgment dated 01.08.2013 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.148/2005. 18. In view of the said factual matrix as obtaining in the case, it is to be examined as to whether the subsequent acquittal of the petitioner would in any way render the concluded departmental proceedings against him invalid. 19. It is to be noted that in the present proceeding, the disciplinary proceeding as initiated against the petitioner was independent of the criminal proceedings so instituted against him during the pendency of the said departmental proceedings. The standard of proof as required in a departmental proceeding as well as in a criminal proceeding is different. In a criminal proceeding, the charges against the accused are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, while in a departmental proceeding, such charges are required to be proved by applying the principles of preponderance of probabilities. In the present case, it is seen that the petitioner has not brought on record any material to demonstrate that the disciplinary proceedings so instituted against him suffers from any infirmity. It is also to be noticed that, although the petitioner was offered opportunity to defend the allegations levelled against him in the departmental proceedings, initiated against him, the petitioner on his volition refrained from participating in the said proceedings. The only ground raised by the petitioner in the present proceedings for assailing the penalty as imposed upon him in the departmental proceeding so instituted against him, is that the said penalty has been rendered void on the ground that subsequently on the same issue in the criminal proceedings so initiated against him, he came to be acquitted from the charges so framed therein. 20. In the case at hand, it is to be noticed that the departmental proceedings instituted against the petitioner was more proximate to the incident, in point of time when compared to the criminal proceedings so held against him. Accordingly, the findings recorded in the criminal proceedings would have no effect on the previously concluded departmental enquiry. 20. In the case at hand, it is to be noticed that the departmental proceedings instituted against the petitioner was more proximate to the incident, in point of time when compared to the criminal proceedings so held against him. Accordingly, the findings recorded in the criminal proceedings would have no effect on the previously concluded departmental enquiry. Further the petitioner herein, having permitted the penalty as imposed upon him in the departmental proceedings to attain its finality in absence of challenge to the same, cannot, after 23 years, be permitted to challenge the same on the ground that subsequently the criminal Court had acquitted him on similar charges. 21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharif Masih Vs. State of Punjab and Haryana High Court, reported in (2007) 15 SCC 753 , wherein a similar challenge, presented after about 15 years to a penalty imposed upon the appellant therein in the year 1983, came to be negated. The plea taken by the appellant therein that, on account of pendency of the criminal proceedings, he could have approached the High Court only in pursuance to his acquittal in the year 1997, came to be rejected. 22. Similarly, in the present case, the petitioner, having not assailed the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing the penalty of termination from service upon him for about 23 years, the said penalty must be held to have attained finality and the same would not be permissible to be re-examined basing on the subsequent acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal charge so levelled against him in the year 2013. 23. In view of above position, this Court is of the considered view that the present petition suffers from delay and laches and accordingly, the order dated 29.08.1995 would not call for any interference. 24. The writ petition, is accordingly, held to be devoid of merit and the same stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.