WP(C) 2820/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I.A. ANSARI Heard Mr. N.C. Das, learned Senior counsel, for the petitioner, and Mr. B.J. Gho sh, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents. By filing this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of I ndia, the petitioner has put to challenge the order, dated 18.08.98, issued by t he respondent No.2, namely, Superintendent of Police, Darrang, dismissing the pe titioner from service. The belated challenge to the order of dismissal, dated 18.08.98, are founded on two grounds, namely, (i) that in respect of the charges, which the petitioner we re held guilty of, and punished by, the order of dismissal, dated 18.08.98, afor ementioned, the petitioner was tried in TADA Sessions Case No.146/99, and by jud gment and order, dated 26.05.2006, passed therein by the learned Designated Cour t, Assam, Guwahati, the petitioner has been acquitted, and (ii) that the petitio ner had not been furnished with the enquiry report and his response to the enqui ry report was not obtained before he was dismissed by the impugned order, dated 18.09.98. with regard to the fact that the petitioner has been acquitted in TADA Sessions Case No.46/1999, suffice it to point out that a charge, in a criminal trial of t he nature, which the petitioner had faced, the prosecution is required to prove the commission of offence by the accused beyond all reasonable doubt; whereas a person may be held guilty on preponderance of evidence in a disciplinary proceed ing, such as, the one, which led to the petitioner’s dismissal from service. Coupled with the above, the respondents have filed their affidavit and submitted that on receipt of the enquiry report, containing the findings of guilt reached against the petitioner, a notice to show cause was issued to the petitioner by Memo No.R/6350/98, dated 07.07.98, directing him to have his say in the matter a nd this show cause notice was received by the petitioner personally on 07.07.98 itself. Upon receipt of the said show cause notice, the petitioner applied for t he recorded statement of the witnesses in the Departmental Proceeding and the sa me was furnished by the Superintendent of Police, Darrang, vide Memo No.R/6873. Upon considering the reply to the said show cause notice and perusal of the reco rd, Superintendent of Police, Darrang, issued the office order, dated 18.08.98, dismissing the petitioner from service and the dismissal order was received by t he petitioner personally on 19.08.98. The respondents have produced the relevant records. The records show that the no tice to show cause was issued, as submitted by the respondents, on 17.07.98, alo ng with a copy of the enquiry report and the same was received by the petitioner on 17.07.98 itself and the petitioner gave his reply thereto seeking copy of th e record of the statement of the witnesses, which too were furnished to the peti tioner. In the face of the facts, as indicated above, there is no reason for this Court to hold that the enquiry report had not been furnished to the petitioner and an y prejudice was caused to the petitioner. Mr. Das, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, points o ut that in the order, dated 18.08.98, the office has been directed to furnish a copy of the dismissal order along with a copy of the enquiry report to the petit ioner. Mr. Das submits that had the enquiry report been furnished, the order, da ted 18.08.98, would not have mentioned that the findings of the enquiry report h as to be furnished to the petitioner. While considering the above submission, it needs to be noted that while the peti tioner gave a copy of the letter, dated 14.07.98, whereby he had asked for the c opies of the record and the statement of the witnesses in order to enable him to show cause, as has been contended by the respondents, and refer to the Memo No. 6350, dated 07.07.98, which the respondents rely upon, the petitioner did not pl ace on record the letter, which was contained in Memo No.6350, no explanation fo r the omission to produce the letter, contained in Memo No.6350, has been offere d by the petitioner or is discernible from the materials on record. At any rate, apart from the fact that the records reveal that the petitioner had not been fu rnished a copy of the enquiry report along with the notice to show cause, as ind icated above, the dispute, if any, as regards the question as to whether the pet itioner had or had not been furnished the copy of the enquiry report is a questi on of dispute, when the notice, contained in the Memo No.6350, furnished to the petitioner, such a disputed question needs to be determined by recording of evid ence and a writ proceeding, such as the present one, is not an appropriate proce eding for this purpose. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, this writ petition fails and the sa me shall accordingly stand dismissed. No order as to costs. Let the relevant records be returned to the learned Govt. Advocate.