Acquittal by benefit of doubt in criminal case does not constitute honourable acquittal and does not vitiate disciplinary dismissal for falsified date of birth, given differing proof standards.

Judgment :

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, J.

By way of present petition, the petitioner who was working as a Beldar with the respondents on regular basis has challenged the order dated 20.06.2008 (Annexure P-4), whereby respondent No.4 had imposed penalty of dismissal from the Government service upon him.

2. The petitioner has pleaded in the petition that he was appointed as Beldar on daily wage basis with the respondent-Department in the year 1987 and thereafter his services were regularized in the year 1999. At the time of regularizing his services, he had mentioned his date of birth as 14.05.1955 (Annexure P-1).

3. It has been averred in the petition that one Sh. Jaram Singh, who was not on good terms with the petitioner, filed a false complaint against him regarding his date of birth before the respondent-Department. The respondent- Department, while taking cognizance of the said complaint, had conducted an inquiry against the petitioner and after receipt of the inquiry report, a show cause notice dated 16.05.2008 (Annexure P-3) was issued to him, stating that upon consideration of the inquiry report, respondent No.4 agreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and found that the articles of charges were proved, and thus the petitioner was not a fit person to be retained in service, and the respondent- Department proposed to impose penalty of dismissal from service on him.

4. The petitioner filed reply to the show cause notice vide Annexure P-2, stating therein that the petitioner is younger to his elder brother Sh. Amar Singh, who has died. His brother Kishan Chand is younger to him by two years, and brother Karam Chand, sister Ratto Devi are younger to him by about 4 and 6 years. In addition, he has one sister Hanso Devi and brother Rajan Kumar who are younger to him by 8 to 10 years. As per the desire of the Inquiry Officer, he has produced the School Leaving Certificate of his brother Rajan Kumar in support of his claim.

5. After receipt of reply to the show cause notice submitted by the petitioner, respondent No.4 passed an office order on 20.06.2008 (Annexure P-4) imposing penalty of dismissal on the petitioner from service.

6. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the said order of dismissal passed by respondent No.4, preferred a petition before this Court bearing No. CWP(T) No.1708 of 2008, titled Gorkhu Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, which was disposed of on 16.03.2010 (Annexure P-5) with a direction that since the petitioner has not filed appeal against the order of dismissal, he is permitted to file an appeal before the appropriate authority to assail the order dated 20.06.2008. The petitioner, in compliance with the directions passed by this Court, preferred an appeal before respondent No.3, who vide order dated 24.03.2011, dismissed the same.

7. The petitioner has averred in the writ petition that he had been acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dalhousie, District Chamba, H.P., in Criminal Case No. 13-11 of 2004, titled State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Gorkhu Ram and others, on 31.10.2011, and since the petitioner had been acquitted, the impugned order passed by the respondents dismissing him from service vide order dated 20.06.2008 (Annexure P-4) and the order dated 24.03.2011 (Annexure P-7) dismissing his appeal, cannot be sustained.

8. It has been pleaded that the appellate authority has merely confirmed the order dated 20.06.2008 passed by respondent No.4. The petitioner had served