3O. Thejudgments relied on by the lei r red counsel appearing for the respondents are distinguis r rble on facts and on law. In this case, the deDartmental rroceedinqs and the criminal case are based on iq entical and simalar set oj lfacts and the charqe in a r, lpartmental case aoainst the appellant and the char(U before the criminal court are one and the same. It i; true that the nature of charge in the departmental proceed r ls and in the criminal case is grave. The nature of the : rse launched against the appellant on the basis of evidenc: and material collected against him during enquiry and in<sup>( stigation and as reflected in the charge-sheet, factors ment )ned aTe one and the same. In other words, charges, evid€r:e, witnesses and circumstances are one and the same. the present case, criminal and departmental proceedingr, have already noticed or granted on the same set of fact!, namely, raid conducted at the appellant's residence, reco'/ ry of articles therefrom. The Investigating Officer Mr V.B. F., val and other departmental witnesses were the only witnes;es examined by the enquiry officer who by relying upon ll 3ir statement came to the conclusion that the charges rv,: e established against the appellant. The same witnesses r,r,c r r examined in the criminal case and the criminal court on t r ) examination came to the conclusjon that the prosecution- rs not proved the guilt alleged against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt and acqurtted the appellanL by its .ludicial pronouncement with the finding that the c i arge has not
