The standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is different from that in criminal cases, and acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically warrant reinstatement.

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J. The two petitioners in their aforementioned respective petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have challenged the validity of Order of Suspension dated 07.09.1998 and the Order of removal from service dated 08.09.1998 and the subsequent Orders dated 18.10.2004 and the Order dated 17.10.2005 dismissing the Appeal and the Review petition.

2. The petitioner Ram Niwas joined as Constable in the Railway Protection Force (hereinafter referred to as "R.P.F") in the year 1985, and petitioner Raj Singh (in the Writ Petition no. 8141/2010) was inducted in RPF on 28.11.1975. Both the petitioners were performing their duties at Tuglakabad railway station since May-June, 1997.

3. On 06.09.1998, the two petitioners along with Prem Chand were arrested in case FIR No. 35/98 under Section 7, 8 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) by Anti-Corruption Branch, Delhi. Ram Niwas and Raj Singh were both put under suspension on 07.09.1998. Departmental Enquiry was conducted by Inspector, R.P.F Post Hazrat Nizamuddin, Delhi. The petitioners have claimed that no impartial Departmental Enquiry was conducted and it was not in accordance with the Rules and Regulations. The petitioners were not given any opportunity to defend themselves. Also, no evidence came against the petitioners in the Departmental Enquiry despite which penalty of removal from service was awarded under the signatures of Divisional Security Commissioner, R.P.F, Northern Railway, Panchukian Road, New Delhi vide Order dated 06.11.2003.

4. The Appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 18.10.2004. The Review Petition dated 07.06.2005 was also dismissed vide Order dated 17.10.2005.

5. The petitioners have stated that after the completion of investigations in the criminal case, Charge Sheet was filed in the Court of Special Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi against them. The trial was conducted and both the petitioners were acquitted by the learned Special Judge vide final Judgement dated 29.05.2010.

6. The petitioners gave their individual written requests dated 26.07.2010 to the Department for reinstatement since all the allegations against them were shown to be false and they had been acquitted. The respondents, however, failed to respond to the request of the petitioners. The petitioners thus filed the present writ petitions seeking reinstatement and consequential benefits.

7. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in their counter affidavit have contended that the acquittal of the petitioners in the criminal trial has no bearing on the outcome of the findings of the Disciplinary Enquiry where the charges against the petitioner were duly proved. Mere acquittal by the learned trial court would not ipso facto render the enquiry null and void conducted by the respondent.

8. The respondents have further contended that the petitioners have belatedly sought to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and it suffers from delay and laches too. Insofar as the contention of no satisfactory grounds have been established for dismissal, the respondents have explained that on 06.09.1998 at about 12.55 hrs, the Anti Corruption Branch of Delhi acting on a complaint, raided house no. C-4, Block No. 69 in Railway Colony, Tuglakabad, which was allotted to Sh. Raj Singh, Constable RPF. At the time of raid, Sh. Ram Niwas Constable RPF and another outsider namely Sh. Prem Chander were found present inside the Quarter. The police recovered 16 currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination, i.e. Rs.8,000/- offered as bribe by Shri Nafis Ahmed to the petitioner. Consequently, a case under Prevention for Corruption Act, 1988 was registered against them. It is claimed that the petitioners are not entitled to reinstatement.

9. The petitioners in their rejoinder has challenged the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents on the ground that designation and other necessary particulars of the person swearing the affidavit have not