J.G. Chitre, J.
1. Heard. Shri Bohra submitted that the petitioner was acquitted in the prosecution which was launched against him in context with leaking of Examination-papers. He submitted that the same witnesses have been examined in the D.E. but even then the respondents have stopped two increments of the petitioner and that has resulted into injustice and, therefore, this Court be pleased to issue the writ of mandamus by seating aside the said order and directing the respondents to give the said two increments which have been stopped. In support of his submission, he read out the opinion which has been given to D.A.V. Vidhyalaya by its legal advisor. The said opinion indicates that
the rules in respect of the condonation of delay in preferring the appeal against such order of punishment needed a proper interpretation and, therefore, Kuladhipati of Vishwavidhyalaya needed to be requested for giving proper interpretation of the rules in that context.
2. Shri Bagadia submitted that the University acted on that opinion and the matter was referred to the Kuladhipati for proper interpretation of the necessary and relevant rules. He submitted that Kuladhipati interpreted the rules by holding that there was no provision of extending time of limitation. He further submitted that the standard of evidence in D.E. is different from the standard of proof which is required in a criminal prosecution. He justified the order which has been challenged by this petition. There cannot be a doubt that the standard of proof required in a criminal prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused is different from the proof required for the purpose of proving the charge framed against the delinquent in the D.E. The Criminal Jurisprudence requires that the guilt of the accused has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. It also indicates that the guilt is to be proved to the extent of “must” and not “may”. Shri Bagadia has pointed out that the judgment of the said Criminal Prosecution shows that the petitioner has been given the benefit of doubt, and therefore, he has been acquitted.
3. Keeping in view the material on record, this Court does not find any necessity of issuing the writ as prayed for by the petitioner. Therefore, this petition is not admitted and dismissed.
4. Writ Petition dismissed.