Disciplinary proceedings can uphold dismissal based on circumstantial evidence, even if the employee is acquitted in a criminal case, as the standards of proof differ.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of present petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged order dated 4.9.2015 passed by the learned Gujarat Educational Institutions Services Tribunal in New Appeal No.257 of 2014 as well as order bearing outward No. 3939 dated 25.2.2012 of the Manager, St. Anne’s Secondary and Higher Secondary School, Nadiad, dismissing the petitioner from the services of the school and prayed, inter alia, that:-

"8.(A) Quash and set aside the impugned Judgment/Order dated 04.09.2015 passed by the Ld. Gujarat Educational Institutions Services Tribunal in New Appeal No. 257/2014 [Old Application Number 36/2012 (Ma.)];

(B) Quash and set aside the impugned Order bearing Outward No. 3939 dated 25.02.2012 of the Manager, St. Anne's Secondary and Higher Secondary School Nadiad, dismissing the petitioner from the services o the school;

(C) Direct the respondents to treat the period of suspension as on duty;

(D) Direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner back in services and restore to him all consequential financial and service benefits, which would have been due to him had he continued in service:

(E) Pass any such other orders as may be deemed fit, proper and just in the interest of justice pending admission hearing and final disposal of the present petition,”

2. The facts giving rise to present petition are that the petitioner joined the services of the school on 1.7.2002 as a "Sathi Sahayak" and after completing 5 years of service, he was appointed as a peon in the school. On 17.3.2011 or thereafter, a multimedia projector of the school was stolen and the same was allegedly recovered from the petitioner and on inquiry, it was found that he was not having any papers of that multimedia projector and therefore, the police has arrested the petitioner.

2.1 On further inquiry and investigation, it was found that the petitioner had stolen the said projector from the respondent school and for that the F.I.R. came to be registered at Nadiad Town Police station being I-C.R. No. 94 of 2011. During the investigation, while he was in custody the multimedia projector was recovered by the investigating officer and the investigating officer asked the Administrator of that school to come and identify as to whether the multimedia projector is of the school or not? Thereafter, the administrator of the school went to the police station and on the basis of number of multimedia projector, he had identified that this was the same multimedia projector, which was stolen from the school. Therefore, criminal case was registered against present petitioner and on the basis of that the respondent school had issued a show-cause-notice on 31.5.2011 with regard to the said criminal case and theft of the multimedia projector.

2.2 The petitioner was asked to give the written explanation within 10 days from the date of receipt of the notice and thereafter, the petitioner came to be suspended and the chargesheet came to be issued on 28.9.2011.

2.3. On the basis of the inquiry, the investigating officer found the petitioner guilty for the charge levelled against him and thereafter, the disciplinary authority took a decision to terminate the service of the petitioner.

2.4 The petitioner feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order of termination filed application before the Tribunal bearing Application No.36 of 2012.

2.5 The petitioner has raised the contention that the impugned action of the respondent is without there being any evidence and without there being any records and hence, the impugned order passed by the respondent school authority is illegal, perverse and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

2.6 The said application was decided by the Tribunal on 4.9.2015, wherein the Tribunal has dealt with the contentions raised by the petitioner in nutshell and passed the order 4.9.2015 and dismissed the application filed by the present petitioner.

2.7 It is also relevant to note herein that in