HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No : 8987 of 2010 O R D E R: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition is filed assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 05.02.2010 in O.A. No. 6257 of 2006 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The case of the petitioner is that while he was working as Fireman in Tuni, East Godavari District, he was kept under suspension, on 01.02.1999 alleging misappropriation of the funds of the department like withdrawal of GPF amount of others to a tune of Rs.16,000/- and Rs.82,000/-. In connection thereto, two criminal cases being C.C.Nos. 15 and 36 of 1999 on the file of the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kakinada were filed. The Divisional Fire Officer, who is now redesigned as District Fire Officer conducted departmental enquiry partly in the absence of the petitioner and awarded the punishment of dismissal from service as per proceedings, dated 31.09.1999. Then, the petitioner filed O.A.No. 6259 of 1999 before the Tribunal, which, in turn, set aside the dismissal order. However, the 1st respondent issued proceedings dated 10.04.2000 again keeping him under suspension. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed O.A.No.6804 of 2000. The Tribunal, by an order dated 09.07.2001 directed reinstatement of the petitioner into service. Pursuant to the same, the Director General of Fire Services, Hyderabad issued proceedings, dated 30.08.2001 reinstating the petitioner and posted him in Tuni Fire Station. The criminal cases filed against the petitioner ended in acquitted. The 1st respondent did not take the said fact into consideration and consequently, did not fix the pay of the petitioner. The petitioner filed another O.A.No. 2545 of 2006 seeking to direct the respondents to regularize the period of suspension from 01.02.1999 to 08.09.2001 as on duty and to pay the salary for the said period and the said O.A. was admitted. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st respondent issued a memo dated 27.07.2006 to the petitioner to submit further representation, in default, the orders inflicting major penalty would be passed. The petitioner submitted his representation on 29.08.2006. Thereafter, the 1st respondent passed orders on 17.09.2006 removing him from service and directing recovery of the alleged amount of Rs.84,911/- and treating the period of suspension as not on duty. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed O.A.No. 6257 of 2006. The Tribunal, after considering the material available before it, dismissed the O.A. Hence, the present Writ Petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that when departmental enquiry and criminal proceedings are based on same set of facts and when the petitioner was exonerated of the criminal proceedings, it is unjust and unfair on the part of the disciplinary authority to remove him from service. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has drawn our attention to the judgment reported in G.M.Tank v. State of Gujarat[1]. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Services-I contends that the facts in criminal case and the departmental enquiry are different and distinct and the standard of proof required in departmental enquiry is not the same as required to prove a criminal charge and that the acquittal in criminal case does not bar departmental enquiry. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the judgments in Noida Entrepreneurs Association v. Noida[2] and State Bank of Hyderabad v. P. Kata Rao[3]. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. The petitioner was removed from service on the allegation that he misappropriated the amounts of the department to a tune of Rs.16,000/- and Rs.82,000/-. From a perusal of the judgment in C.C.No.15 of 1999, it is clear that Accused No.2 i.e. the petitioner herein was acquitted on the ground that his specimen signatures were not taken in the presence of the Presiding Officer of the Court and therefore, the report of the handwriting expert depended on the specimen signatures taken in the police station is inadmissible. A perusal of the judgment in C.C.No. 36 of 1999 shows that the Accused No.1. i.e. the petitioner herein was acquitted as there is no evidence against him to prove the allegations levelled against him. But during the course of departmental enquiry, it came to light that the petitioner involved in preparation and encashment of the bills. It is well settled that in criminal proceedings, proof beyond reasonable doubt is essential, whereas in the departmental enquiry, it is sufficient if there is any material to show that the applicant got involved in the fraudulent transaction. Therefore, in view of the judgments reported in Noida Entrepreneurs Association and Noida (cited supra) and State Bank of Hyderabad v. P. Kata Rao (cited supra), we hold that acquittal in criminal case does not bar departmental enquiry. In the above said circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order dated 05.02.2010 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No. 6257 of 2006 and that the same warrants no interference. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ---------------------------- (GHULAM MOHAMMED,J) ----------------------------- (G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J) 26th April 2010 ksld 1. ..... REGISTRAR 2. // TRUE COPY // 3. SECTION OFFICER To 4. 1) 2 CD copies 5. Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR} 3rd August 2009 ksld [1] (2006) 5 SCC 446 [2] (2007) 10 SCC 385 [3] (2008) 15 SCC 657