[1] IN THE HIGH COURTOF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APAPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 5849 OF 2006 G.R.Koli ... Petitioner. Vs. Engineering Projects (India) Ltd. & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. Anil S.Gadre for the petitioner. Ms. Mili Thakkar with Girish Desai i/b. M/s S.V.Thakkar for the respondent No. 1 & 2. Mrs. Purnima Awasti for the Union of India. CORAM CORAM CORAM : : : Bilal Nazki and Bilal Nazki and Bilal Nazki and A.A.Sayed, A.A.Sayed, A.A.Sayed, JJ. JJ. JJ. DATE DATE DATE : April 24, 2009. : April 24, 2009. : April 24, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has been dismissed by respondent No.2 by Order dated 26th December, 2005 and that order is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. It appears that the charges were framed against the petitioner during the course of Departmental [2] Enquiry. The following charges were framed:- (a) Cancelled original tender price bid rate of 11% above estimate of Maharashtra State Electricity Board by putting cross mark. (b) Prepared bogus price bid with quoted rate as 42.70% above the Estimate of Maharashtra State Electricity Board. (c) Attached bogus price bid with the original tender document and submitted to Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Mumbai on 31.10.2003. (d) Cancelled original price bid rate which was approved by the Chairman & Managing Director of Engineering Projects (India) Ltd. 4. The petitioner accepted these charges. The only defence he put forth is that whatever he had done had been done after seeking instructions from his superior officer. At no point of time during the course of enquiry, he even made an attempt to get his superior officer as witness or as a witness whom he could have cross-examined. Employer of the petitioner had sustained loss by not getting a contract from MSEB. The tender documents were tampered with by the petitioner which resulted in loss to the Petitioner’s Company. The grievance of the employer was that the petitioner deliberately did it so that the employer -Company could be thrown out of the competition and contract of the MSEB could be given to some other company. Later on we are told that MSEB cancelled the tender itself. But in any case that is not going to make any difference so far as the misconduct of the [3] petitioner is concerned. He has admitted the charges and only one explanation given is that he had made changes in the tender document on the instructions of his Superior officer, which was not proved by him. The Enquiry Officer was right in coming to the conclusion that misconduct had been proved. While considering the contention of the petitioner that he had instructions from his Superior, the Enquiry Officer gave his opinion in the following words: "In various paragraphs of the Statement of Defence C.O. has asserted that the enhancement of price and submission of revised tender with 42.70% price bid was done by him in consultation with and direction from the superior officers over telephone. C.O. in spite of being given opportunity at the appropriate stage during inquiry to adduce oral and/or documentary evidence in support of his several contentions, he has adduced no evidence whatsoever. There is no hint or reference to instructions or directions of superior authorities, if any while he claimed in his Answer No.9 recorded in Daily Order Sheet dated 14.9.2003 that he submitted the price of 42.70% above estimate. In such a position, it is totally unsafe to accept the version of C.O. [4] that the enhancement and submission of revised tender was done under direction or directions of any superior authority." 5. Another ground taken by the learned Counsel for the petitioner to challenge the order of dismissal is that he was also facing criminal trial but he was acquitted by the criminal Court. We have also seen the judgment of the lower Court. It is well settled that the standard of proof required in criminal trial is qualitatively different than that the proof required in departmental proceedings. Law is now well settled that even if a delinquent is finally acquitted from criminal charge by the criminal court, that cannot be sole basis for exonerating the delinquent for his misconduct. In this connection a reference can be made to the Judgment in case of ANUPAMA NAIK VERSUS THE STANDARD CHARTERED ANUPAMA NAIK VERSUS THE STANDARD CHARTERED ANUPAMA NAIK VERSUS THE STANDARD CHARTERED BANK BANK BANK & ORS., reported in 2007 (5) ALL MR 278 (Bom) 278. & ORS., reported in 2007 (5) ALL MR 278 (Bom) 278. & ORS., reported in 2007 (5) ALL MR 278 (Bom) 278. 6. For these reasons we do not find merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. [Bilal [Bilal [Bilal Nazki,J.] Nazki,J.] Nazki,J.] [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, J.] J.] J.]