S. B. SINHA. C. J.

( 1 ) THE only contention raised in this writ petition is that the petitioner having been acquitted in the criminal charges, could not have been punished in the departmental proceedings and, in any event, having regard to the judgment passed by the criminal Court, the quantum of punishment must be held to be disproportionate to the charges of misconduct levelled against him.

( 2 ) THERE is no dispute that the petitioner was proceeded against simultaneously both in the criminal trial as also in the departmental proceedings. In the departmental proceedings, except refusing to cross-examine one witness on the ground that his defence would be disclosed, the. petitioner took part in the departmental proceedings without any demur whatsoever and cross-examined all other witnesses. He has not sought even for stay of the departmental proceedings on the ground that he would be prejudiced in the criminal trail if he is supposed to take part in the departmental proceedings.

( 3 ) THE question, which arises for consideration, is whether at this stage the petitioner can be permitted to raise the aforementioned contentions.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner himself has placed reliance upon a decision of the Apex Court in M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Cold Mines Ltd} wherein the law has been laid down in the following terms:"13. As we shall presently see, there is a consensus of judicial opinion amongst the High Courts whose decisions we do not intend to refer to in this case, and the various pronouncements of this Court, which shall be copiciously referred to, on the basic principle thaf proceedings in a criminal case and the departmental proceedingcan proceed simultaneously with a little exception. As we understand, the basis for this proposition is that proceedings in a criminal case and the departmental proceedings operate in distinct and different jurisdictional areas. Whereas in the departmental proceedings, where a charge relating to misconduct is being investigated, the factors operating in the mind of the disciplinary authority may be many such as enforcement of discipline or to investigate the level of integrity of the delinquent or the other staff, the standard of proof required in those proceedings is also different than that required in a criminal case. While in the departmental proceedings the standard of proof is one of preponderance of the probabilities, in a criminal case, the charge has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The little exception may be where the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common without being a variance. "

( 5 ) THERE cannot thus be any dispute whatsoever that both the criminal charges and the departmental proceedings can proceed simultaneously.

( 6 ) THIS aspect of the matter has also been considered by a learned Single Judge of this court in K. Raghurambabu vs. R. P. F. , S. C. R

( 7 ) IT is further well settled that even in a case where the criminal trial ends in acquittal in favour of the delinquent employee, there does not exist any embargo on the part of the disciplinary authority in initiating disciplinary proceedings on the selfsame charges. As noticed herein before, in Paul Anthony s case (supra), the supreme Court itself has categorically held that it is possible that a person can be found guilty of commission of misconduct despite his acquittal in the criminal trial. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, would urge that as in the instant case the criminal trial and the departmental proceedings are based on the same set of facts and the evidence adduced before the criminal Court and the disciplinary authorities being the same without any variance, exception to the aforementioned rule would be attracted. The learned counsel, however, could not produce any material whatsoever in support of the aforementioned contention before this court. Even the jud

Click Here to Read the rest of this document