Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. When a departmental proceeding results in a finding of guilt but the employee is subsequently acquitted in a criminal trial on the same facts and evidence, such acquittal must be given significant weight. It indicates that the employee’s guilt has not been established beyond reasonable doubt, and it would be unjust to uphold the departmental dismissal based solely on the earlier departmental findings (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

2. The principle that departmental proceedings and criminal trials are distinct, with different standards of proof and objectives, is well-established. Criminal proceedings require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, while departmental proceedings are based on a preponderance of probabilities (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

3. In cases where the same set of facts and evidence are involved, an acquittal in a criminal court on merits (not on technical or procedural grounds) should lead to the quashing or setting aside of the departmental order of dismissal, especially when the criminal court’s decision is final and unchallenged (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

4. The scope of judicial review over departmental decisions under Article 226 of the Constitution is limited to examining whether the enquiry was conducted according to proper procedure, whether natural justice was observed, and whether the decision was based on evidence or material on record. Re-evaluation of evidence or re-appreciation of facts by the High Court is generally not permissible (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

5. If the evidence in departmental proceedings is entirely lacking or insufficient to establish guilt, the employee’s dismissal or disciplinary action may be deemed unjustified and liable to be quashed. The evidence must be credible, balanced, and based on a proper evaluation of facts and witnesses (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

6. The timing of the criminal acquittal relative to the departmental order is relevant. If the employee has been acquitted after the disciplinary action, the order of dismissal should be reconsidered, and in many cases, set aside, especially when the acquittal is on the merits and not due to procedural flaws (!) (!) (!) .

7. In cases where the employee has served for a significant period and the criminal court’s final order is acquittal, the appropriate remedy may be to set aside the departmental order without back wages but with entitlement to pension, particularly if the employee has already superannuated (!) (!) .

8. The decision to proceed with departmental proceedings while criminal cases are pending depends on the facts and circumstances. However, if the criminal case results in an acquittal on merits, continuing departmental action may be unjust and oppressive (!) (!) (!) .

9. The burden of proof in departmental proceedings is lighter than in criminal trials, and findings based on probabilities are sufficient for disciplinary action, provided that the evidence is credible and properly evaluated (!) (!) .

10. The final authority must ensure that the principles of natural justice are followed during departmental inquiries and that decisions are based on evidence that is legally admissible and properly appreciated (!) (!) (!) .

These points collectively emphasize that an employee’s acquittal in criminal proceedings on the same facts and evidence should influence the outcome of departmental disciplinary actions, often leading to their quashing, especially when the criminal judgment is final and on merits.