"11. As far as acquittal of the appellant by a criminal court is concerned, in our opinion, the said order does not preclude the Corporation from taking an action if it is otherwise permissible. In our judgment, the law is fairly well settled. Acquittal by a criminal court would not debar an employer from exercising power in accordancewith the Rules and Regulations in force. The two proceedings,criminalanddepartmental,are entirely differeht. They operate ,in different f/e/cfs and have different obj'ectives. Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on the offender, the purposeofenquiry proceedingsistodeal wifh the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with the service rules. In a criminal trial, incriminating statement made by the accused in certain circumstances or before certain officers is totally inadmissible in evidence. Such strict rufes of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental pmceedings. The degree ofproof which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of proofnecessary to record the commission of delinquency. The rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also notsimilar. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the "beyond accused reasonable doubt", he cannot be convicted by a court of law. In a departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of "preponderance of pmbability". Acquittal of the appellant by a Judicial Magistrate, therefore, does not ipso facto absolve him from the liability under the disciplinary Jurisdiction of the Corporation. We are, therefore, unableto uphold the contention of the appellant that since he was acquitted by a criminal court, the impugned order
