The standard of proof in departmental proceedings is different from that in criminal cases, and an acquittal in a criminal trial does not necessarily affect the outcome of a dismissal based on an independent enquiry.

1. - Petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable in the year 1982 a d was subsequently confirmed on the above post. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet on 14.3.1990 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958. After holding a regular departmental enquiry against the petitioner and other co-delinquent officers jointly, punishment of dismissal was imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 31.12.1990. The appeal against the order of dismissal, preferred by the petitioner, was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 31st May, 1991. A further Review Petition, preferred before His Excellency the Governor, was also dismissed vide Order dated 07.12.1994. The above orders of punishment dated 31.12.1990, the appellate order dated 31st May, 1991 and the order in Review Petition dated 07.12.1994, are under challenge in the present writ petition which has been filed on 23rd of March, 2000.

2. The writ petition has been filed mainly on the ground that the petitioner has already been acquitted of the charges under Sections 452 and 336 IPC on the same set of facts by the trial Court vide order dated 16.09.1999.

3. Mr. Narendra Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, while heavily relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., reported in AIR 1999 (SC) 1416 , has submitted that in view of acquittal in the criminal trial, in the similar set of facts, the charges could not have been held to be proved in the departmental enquiry and, as such, the dismissal of the petitioner was not legal and justified. Mr. Jain has further relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Mohd. Umar v. The Rajasthan State Electricity Board and another, reported in 1993 (1) WLC 253 which has further been followed by this Court in the case of Sohan Raj Sharma v. The State of Rajasthan and others, reported in 1997 (2) RLW 1181 .

4. After having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, I have carefully gone through the material on record and also the judgment cited at the bar, as referred to above.

5. It is well settled proposition of law and it has also been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (Supra) 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 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 doubts.

6. It is also well settled that the proceedings, which are initiated by the employer, are aimed at to ensure the proper conduct of the employee and are further aimed at to maintain discipline and dignity while in service and further that unscrupulous element may not be continued in service. The object of the criminal trial is to punish the offender and the Court dealing with the trial has no jurisdiction to take any disciplinary action against an unscrupulous employee since that domain exclusively vests in the Disciplinary Authority. The disciplinary proceedings by the department can be initiated to find out the misconduct of the employee even if a criminal case is pending on identical facts.

7. In the present case, the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 14.3.1990 with the allegations that the petitioner consumed liquor alongwith his colleagues and some outsiders on the place of guard duty. Thereafter, while on duty, the petitioner ent