JUDGMENT :

1. In the present writ petition the petitioner has assailed the order dated 05.11.2003, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Vadodara City, dismissing the petitioner from the service as well as the orders passed in the Appeal and Revision Application i.e. dated 26.12.2003 and dated 12.01.2006 respectively.

2. The brief facts are as under.

2.1 The petitioner was serving as a Police Constable with the respondents since 1984. On 15.03.1990, the petitioner was suspended from service in view of the serious charges of theft of various motorcycles and selling them. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet on 12.01.1994, inter alia for the charges that he had stolen motorcycles, which are mentioned therein by using duplicate keys and selling them by replacing them by duplicate number plates. The petitioner did not reply to the charge-sheet for the reason that the documents, as demanded by him, were not supplied.

2.2 Simultaneously, criminal complaints were also registered against the petitioner being Criminal Cases Nos.1808 of 1990, 1809 of 1990, 1769 of 1990, 1790 of 1990 and 1791 of 1990. The petitioner was acquitted in the criminal offences, which were registered for the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2.3 Thereafter, it appears that in view of the departmental proceedings, the petitioner has been dismissed from service by the impugned order dated 05.11.2003, which was subsequently confirmed in the appeal as well as in the revision application, filed by the petitioner.

3. Learned advocate Mr.Upadyay, appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned orders are required to be quashed and set aside, as the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal charges, which are based on the similar facts. It is submitted that though the judgment of acquittal was pointed out before the disciplinary authority as well as before the inquiry officer, the same have not been considered in its true perspective and, therefore, the impugned orders are required to be quashed and set aside. He has submitted that a lenient view may be taken against the petitioner, looking to the fact that he is retiring in the year 2022. It is also submitted by him that some of the witnesses have not supported the case of the respondent department and hence, the inquiry officer has fallen in error in appreciating the deposition of such witnesses and the charges are proved against the petitioner only by placing reliance on the statements of some of the witnesses, who have been deposed against him. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned orders may be set aside. No further submission is advanced.

4. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Rohan Shah, has submitted that the departmental proceedings are conducting after following the statutory rules of the Bombay Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1956, after affording full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the cross-examination of the petitioner was also done by the disciplinary authority. It is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that it is not the case of the petitioner that any of the statutory provisions have been violated while holding the departmental proceedings. He has submitted that merely the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal proceedings, the same would not be ipso facto render the disciplinary proceedings as void since the standard of proof in the departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings, is different. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others v. Dalbir Singh, AIR 2021 SC 4504. Thus, he has submitted that the writ petition may not be entertained.

5. I have heard the learned advocates for respective parties to the lis. I have also perused the relevant documents as pointed out by the learned advocates for the respective parties.

6. The facts which are established from the record are that the petitioner was working as