The standard of proof and consistency with related criminal cases are crucial in disciplinary proceedings involving public officials.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order passed in W.P.No.15585 of 2017 dated 21.06.2017.)

Subramonium Prasad, J.

1. The writ petitioner is the appellant. The writ appeal challenges the order dated 21.06.2017 in W.P.No.15585 of 2017, which was filed by the appellant, for quashing the order dated 10.12.2016 imposing a penalty of postponement of increment for two years with cumulative effect.

2. The facts of the case is that the appellant/petitioner is a Police Officer. His wife has entered into a Private Chit Fund (Kitty). It is an allegation that she took money out the Chit, but has not paid the instalments, resulting in registration of a criminal case against the appellant / petitioner and his wife for the offence punishable under sections 420, 294 read with 34 IPC. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the First Information Report. The First Information Report was quashed by order dated 03.02.2011. The petitioner's wife also filed a petition for quashing the charge sheet and the criminal case has been quashed by this Court by order dated 16.10.2014, wherein, this Court found that no offence has been made against the petitioner's wife.

3. Domestic enquiry proceeded against the appellant / petitioner on the basis of the statements made by some witnesses who have stated that the appellant / petitioner was aware that his wife had borrowed money from chit fund and has not returned the same and that the appellant / petitioner threatened the witnesses that his wife will not pay the amount and they can do whatever they can do. The Enquiry Officer found that the charges have been proved against the appellant / petitioner and based on the findings of the Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority has imposed penalty of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect.

4. The order imposing punishment has been challenged in W.P.No.15585 of 2017. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition stating that the standard of proof adopted before the domestic enquiry is only on the principle of “preponderance of probabilities”, whereas, the standard of proof before the criminal Court is on the principle of “proving the case beyond all reasonable doubt.” The learned Single Judge, therefore, refused to interfere with the order of the disciplinary authority. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioner has filed the present appeal.

5. The evidence in both the criminal case and the domestic enquiry are identical and based on the same set of facts. The appellant / writ petitioner filed writ petitions in W.P.Nos.6074 and 6075 of 2011 for quashing the first information report dated 16.02.2010. The first information report was quashed by order dated 03.02.2011. The learned Single Judge, while quashing the first information report found that the allegations made in the first information report even taken on a bare reading do not constitute any offence. Paragraph 8 of the order dated 03.02.2011 reads as under:

“8. If the allegations made in the First Information Report even taken on a bearing reading do not constitute any offence then, the Court should interfere and quash such proceedings. On perusal of the complaint it is evident that there is no allegation to implicate this petitioner who is the police constable. It is a fit case to interfere and the First Information Report in Crime No.13/2020 on the file of first respondent is quashed as far as the petitioner alone is concerned. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”

6. Charge Sheet was filed against the appellant / petitioner's wife who filed Crl. R.C. No.1201 of 2013 for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.302 of 2012.

7. The learned Single Judge, after going through the materials found that there is no material whatsoever to show that any amount was due and payable from the appellant / writ petitioner's wife and therefore offence cannot be made out.