The standards of proof in criminal and departmental proceedings differ, affecting the relevancy of acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARTHY, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has filed the instant application challenging the order dated 10.6.2006 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna dismissing the petitioner from service. Further challenge is to the order dated 5.12.2006 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (D.I.G.), Patna rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner as also the order dated 27.5.2013 whereby the memorial was dismissed by the Director General of Police, Bihar.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was proceeded against by service of a charge-sheet on 16.5.2002 on the charge therein that inspite of directions given to him by various letters including dated 21.8.2001 and 27.8.2001 in connection with the appointment of the petitioner against Advertisement no.1 of 1998 for him to appear physically for comparison/matching of his photograph, inspite of repeated directions the petitioner did not appear which lead to the petitioner being suspended by order dated 17.9.2001. It was stated that the act of the petitioner reflected gross indiscipline and defiance of the order. The petitioner filed his reply and the enquiry proceeded. On conduct of the enquiry, the Conducting Officer found the charge to have been proved.

4. On submission of the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority i.e. the S.S.P., Patna by order dated 10.6.2006 was pleased to dismiss the petitioner from service with a further direction that he would not be paid any other amount for the suspension period except the subsistence allowance. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the D.I.G., Patna which was rejected vide order dated 5.12.2006.

5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was proceeded against in a criminal case for similar charges which ended in acquittal of the petitioner vide judgment dated 30.1.2013 passed in Trial No.521 of 2013 (G.R. No.152 of 2003) by the Judicial Magistrate I^st Class, Patna.

6. The petitioner having been acquitted in the criminal case, he once again preferred an appeal before the D.I.G., Patna which was again rejected and the same was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 7.6.2013 (Annexure-1 series).

7. The petitioner preferred a memorial against the order of rejection of his appeal on 5.12.2006 which came to be rejected by order dated 27.5.2013 passed by the Director General of Police (D.G.P.), Bihar on the ground of the same being time barred.

8. It is against these orders that the petitioner has preferred the instant application.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charges levelled in the departmental proceeding as also the criminal case are identical and the witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents/prosecution were also the same. The witnesses not having supported the prosecution case leading to acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case, there was no material for the Enquiry Officer to come to the conclusion that the charges against the petitioner had been proved.

10. It is further submitted that so far as the direction of the respondents for the petitioner to appear on 27.8.2001 for his physical verification is concerned, the petitioner after having filed an application and having obtained casual leave had proceeded for the treatment of his wife and as such he could not appear. The orders of punishment passed by the respondents besides being disproportionate, is not sustainable for the reason of the petitioner not having been given adequate opportunity to defend himself. Thus the orders suffer from the vice of principles of na