In disciplinary proceedings, the standard of proof is based on preponderance of probabilities, differing from criminal trials where guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

JIYA LAL BHARDWAJ, J.

1. By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:-

“(a) Quashing and setting aside the order dated 04.12.2008 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Pr. Secretary (AH) to the Government of H.P. (Respondent No.1) and also the order dated 29.04.2008 (Annexure P-8) passed by respondent No.2.

(b) The enquiry report dated 27.06.2007 (Annexure P-7) on the basis of which the penalty is imposed on the petitioner may also be quashed along with the entire proceeding being against procedure and law.

(c) The charge sheet dated 1-11-2006 issued by respondent No.2 may also be quashed and set aside.”

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the key facts of the case are that the petitioner, who was working as Animal Husbandry Assistant, was issued a charge-sheet dated 01.11.2006 (Annexure P-2) on two articles of charges, which are as follows:-

“Article -I: That Shri Purna Nand, Animal Husbandry Assistant while functioning as Animal Husbandry Assistant at Veterinary Dispensary, Taksal, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H.P, during the month of October 2005 onwards failed to look after the proper maintenance of his family in contravention of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

Article-II: That Shri Purna Nand while functioning as Animal Husbandry Assistant, Veterinary Dispensary Taksal, Distt. Solan, H.P. during the period 10/2005 onwards entered into/contracted remarriage in contravention of Rule, 21 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.”

3. The petitioner filed reply to the charge-sheet and denied the charges. Thereafter, regular enquiry was conducted after following the due process of law. In the enquiry report, a conclusion was drawn by the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner came to the office on 15.12.2006 and made partial confession regarding his first son in the Pariwar Register of Nirmand Panchayat and further his statement that Amit is his son, but he did not know the mother of his son are the basis to conclude that the petitioner had solemnized the second marriage with Smt. Bhadru Devi.

4. After receipt of the enquiry report by the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner was supplied the same and thereafter, vide office order dated 29.04.2008 (Annexure P-8), the Disciplinary Authority had imposed major penalty under Rule 11(vi) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and reverted the petitioner to the lower post of Veterinary Pharmacist in the pay scale of Rs. 4400-7000/- with immediate effect and there will be bar to his promotion to the higher post of Animal Husbandry Assistant and further he will be junior most in the final seniority list of Veterinary Pharmacists with immediate effect and will draw minimum pay in the time scale of the post of Veterinary Pharmacist.

5. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order of penalty dated 29.04.2008 had preferred an appeal which was rejected on 04.12.2008 (Annexure P-9) and the revision petition was thereafter dismissed.

6. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said orders had preferred the writ petition before this Court bearing CWP No. 3490 of 2012, titled, Purna Nand Sharma versus State of H.P. and others. This Court had disposed the writ petition on 28.02.2013 directing the respondents to hear the petitioner and dispose of the matter on or before 31.03.2013.

7. Thereafter the petitioner was heard on 12.03.2013 and vide office order dated 29.03.2013 (Annexure P-10), respondent No.1 had disposed of the revision petition holding therein that there was no major change in the fact