The standard of proof required to prove misconduct in departmental proceedings is not the same as that in criminal cases.

ORDER

1. The appellant was employed as Lower Division Clerk with the Bihar State Cooperative Marketing Union Ltd. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on charges of misconduct involving defalcation of funds and in those proceedings the services of the appellant were terminated, by way of punishment, by order dated 19-10-1979. It appears that the appellant was also prosecuted on criminal charges in relation to the said defalcation and in the said criminal proceedings he was acquitted by the trial court on 14-7-1986 and the appeal filed by the State against the acquittal was dismissed by the Patna High Court on 17-4-1987. Thereafter, the appellant submitted a representation before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies for setting aside the order for termination of his services. The said representation of the appellant was dismissed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies by order dated 17-4-1989. The appellant filed a writ petition (CWJC No. 4470 of 1989) in the Patna High Court challenging the said order of the Registrar. The said writ petition of the appellant has been dismissed, in limine, by the High Court by the impugned order dated 16-2-1990.

2. The only ground which has been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant in support of this appeal is that since the appellant has been acquitted in the criminal case, the order for termination of his services should have been set aside. The learned counsel has placed before us a copy of the judgment of the criminal court whereby the appellant was acquitted. We have gone through the said judgment. We find that the acquittal of the appellant is based on the view that the charges are not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Since the standard of proof required to prove a charge of misconduct in departmental proceedings is not the same as that required to prove a criminal charge, the acquittal of the appellant in the criminal case, in these circumstances, could not, in our opinion, be made the basis for setting aside the order for termination of the services of the appellant passed in the disciplinary proceedings on the basis of evidence adduced in the departmental inquiry conducted in the charges levelled against the appellant. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. No orders as to costs.