Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
State Of Raj. & Ors vs Bahadur Ram on 11 November, 2009
1
D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO.02448/2008
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
v.
Bahadur Ram
Date of Judgment :: 11th November, 2009
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR
Mr. IS Pareek, Additional Government Counsel.
Mr. SK Poonia, for the respondent.
....
To assail validity, correctness and
propriety of the judgment dated 1.11.2007, passed by
learned Single Judge, this appeal is preferred. The
appeal is barred by limitation, thus, an application
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is also
preferred.
In brief, facts of the case are that the
respondent, a Constable with Rajasthan Police was
charged for an offence punishable under Sections 379
and 411 IPC. For the same allegations he was also
charged for committing a misconduct as defined under
Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971. The
respondent accordingly faced criminal trial as well as
the disciplinary proceedings under Rule 16 of the
Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control &
Appeal) Rules, 1958. The disciplinary authority
dismissed the respondent from service vide an order
dated 28.2.1994 and that came to be affirmed by the
appellate authority vide order dated 20.12.1994. A
2
review petition preferred before the Governor too came
to be rejected, hence the respondent preferred a
petition for writ before this Court and that came to
be accepted by the judgment impugned. Learned Single
Judge, while setting aside the orders passed by the
disciplinary authority, appellate authority and
reviewing authority, held that the delinquent employee
was honourably exonerated from the charges levelled
against him, therefore, on basis of the same set of
evidence he could have not been penalised through
disciplinary action.
While challenging the judgment aforesaid,
contention of counsel for the appellant State is that
standard of proof required in recording a finding of
conviction in a criminal case and in departmental
proceedings are distinct and different. In a criminal
case it is essential to prove a charge beyond all
reasonable doubt, whereas in a departmental
proceedings preponderance of probability would serve
the purpose and in the case in hand the disciplinary
authority on preponderance of probability reached at a
definite conclusion, thus, that was not at all
warranting interference of this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
We have examined the judgment impugned and
also record of the case.
3
It is well settled that standard of proof
required in recording a finding of conviction must be
of strong nature to the extent that a charge must be
proved beyond all reasonable doubts whereas in a
departmental proceeding preponderance of probability
would serve the purpose. If in a criminal trial the
court concludes that the charge itself is not made
out, the incident alleged is absolutely false or
concocted then the departmental adjudicating authority
must not pass any order contrary, but in the case
where a benefit of doubt is extended to the accused,
then while considering the allegation of misconduct
the departmental adjudicating authority can certainly
examine preponderance of probability and also reach at
a conclusion different to that of given by the court
of criminal jurisdiction.
In the instant case learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate by his judgment dated 20.5.1995 not only
acquitted the respondent but also gave a specific
finding that no case against him is made out for the
offences punishable under Sections 420, 120-B IPC. As
per trial court there was no evidence against the
accused (the respondent) to establish the allegation
of forgery. The evidence which was taken into
consideration by the trial court to acquit the
respondent honourably was also examined by the
disciplinary authority but he reached at a different
conclusion, though that was prior to passing of the
4
order of acquittal by the trial court. Hon'ble Supreme
Court in G.M.Tak v. State of Gujarat and others,
reported in 2006(5) SCC 446, held that where a
honourable acquittal of the employee is made by
competent authority, then this fact is required to be
taken into consideration in the proceedings giving
challenge to the dismissal made as a consequent to
domestic inquiry for the same charge. In the present
case the disciplinary as well as the appellate
authority passed their orders prior to acquittal made
by the trial court, however, before reviewing
authority the respondent employee submitted a copy of
the judgment acquitting him and urged that his case is
required to be considered by keeping in mind the
findings given by the trial court. The reviewing
authority, thus, should have considered the findings
given by the trial court which are as a matter of fact
based on same set of evidence on basis of which the
employee concerned was penalised with dismissal. The
reviewing authority instead of taking into
consideration the judgment passed by the trial court
rejected the appeal simplicitor. Learned Single Judge
considered this aspect of the matter and quashed the
order of dismissal as that was contrary to the
findings given by the trial court acquitting the
petitioner and also holding that no charge at all is
made out against him. On examination of record, we are
satisfied that the respondent was acquitted by the
trial court honourably with a definite finding that no
5
charge of forgery is made out against him. It is also
noticed by us that the evidence available before the
trial court and the disciplinary authority during the
course of inquiry were same. As such, we also find no
justification for maintaining dismissal of the
respondent employee.
In view of whatever discussed above, we are
not at all inclined to condone the delay in filing the
appeal. Accordingly, the application as well as the
appeal are dismissed.
( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. ( A.M.KAPADIA ),J.
kkm/ps.