The acquittal in criminal proceedings does not preclude disciplinary action in departmental proceedings, as the standard of proof and burden of proof are different in the two proceedings.

JUDGMENT

G.S. Sandhawalia, J. - Present letters patent appeal is directed against the order dated 23.10.2019 passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No.13364 of 2018, whereby the writ petitioner who was working as Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) who was dismissed on 29.10.2015 (Annexure P-5), whose appeal had been dismissed on 08.06.2016 (Annexure P-7) and also the revision on 21.10.2017 (Annexure P-10), had set aside the same. He was directed to be reinstated in service while quashing the departmental proceedings of chargesheet dated 21.04.2015 (Annexure P-2A) including the report of the Inquiry Officer dated 26.05.2015 (Annexure P-4). Resultantly, the State had been asked to reinstate the writ petitioner in service and release all statutory benefits in accordance with law within a period of two months.

2. The reasoning as such to arrive at the said conclusion by the learned Single Judge is that the criminal proceedings and the departmental proceedings were overlapping and therefore, it would be oppressive to allow the findings recorded in the departmental proceedings. The learned Single Judge was of the view that since the criminal proceedings resulted in an acquittal of the employee, therefore, the appellate authority and the revisional authority were not correct as they had applied their mind vaguely and it was a fit case to remand the matter, had there been no reference to acquittal. It was accordingly held that if the charges of misconduct and indiscipline were falling out of the FIR which was registered under Section 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the writ petitioner alongwith Manoj were stated to have played pivotal role in making the complainant believe to get his brother discharged or removed from the list of accused persons in FIR No.454 of 2014. Since both of them were not investigating officers, there could not be any imputation on the writ petitioner. Therefore, connection between the writ petitioner and Manoj Kumar having been not proved, it was held that the department had miserably failed to prove any nexus, as the reasoning would not stand the touchstone of reasonability and the impugned orders being not sustainable, leading to the dismissal order and subsequent orders being set aside.

3. Counsel for the State has in her usual vehement style ably argued that Rule 16.3 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to the State of Haryana) would have to be examined, which protected the police officers on account of an acquittal and they were not to be proceeded departmentally on the same charge or on a different charge on the basis of evidence cited in a criminal case. It was submitted that there were exceptions to the said rule and where the criminal charge fails on the technical ground and the prosecution witnesses have been won over, the benefit was not to be given. She further submitted that the complainant Shamsher Singh had supported the case in the departmental proceedings, but not in the criminal proceedings. Reliance was placed upon the statement of the said person recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. to contend that there was a demand from the writ petitioner who was serving as ASI and was posted in CIA-3, Rohtak. That the money had been handed over to Satish Kumar who had placed the same in Manoj's car, in pursuance of the demand raised. It was, accordingly, submitted that the charge-sheet had lowered the image of the police department and gross negligence was rampant. Merely on account of the prosecution witnesses turning hostile and on technical grounds acquittal had been recorded. It was further submitted that standard of proof in criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings is different and it was only the preponderance of probability which would prevail and merely acquittal would not be a ground as such to exonerate the writ petitioner.

4. Senior counsel for the respondent-employee on the other hand has submitted that the learned Single Judge was justified in passing the sai