The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for following prescribed procedures and exercising discretion within the bounds of the law in disciplinary proceedings, especially in cases where the charges are based on the same allegations as in a criminal trial.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Sanjay Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the Stat respondents.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of disciplinary authority imposing major penalty of dismissal from service vide order dated 19th March, 2020 and appellate order dated 20th August, 2020.

3. It is submitted that on the point of findings returned in the enquiry officer's report bringing home the charge against the petitioner regarding alleged incident where one Kanhaiya Lal was robbed by the petitioner of Rs. 4 lacs and odd that he was carrying in pocket. Except for the statement of his friend, namely Bobby @ Gopal Sharma who accompanied him, there was no other evidence available to the enquiry officer, intrinsic enough, on the touchstone of principles of preponderance of probability, to hold petitioner guilty of the charge.

4. It is next submitted that charges the were levelled against petitioner were same as alleged in the first information report lodged by the victim Kanhaiya Lal five days after the alleged incident.

5. It is also submitted that except the statement of Kanhaya Lal, the main victim and Gopal Sharma his friend no other statement got recorded by the Inquiry Officer so as to corroborate charge leveled in the chargesheet, inasmuch as Gopal Sharma showed his innocence regarding alleged loot conducted upon complainant Kanhiya Lal for a specific sum of Rs. 4 lacs and odd.

6. Besides above, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that second show cause notice that was issued on 30.12.2018 based upon the enquiry report, was in respect of proposed punishment for reverting the petitioner to the basic pay of the pay-scale as admissible to the post of constable. The petitioner did question the enquiry report, but his reply was keeping in mind the proposed punishment, however, instead of awarding punishment of reversion, a harsh penalty of termination from service has got awarded by the disciplinary authority, which according to him is an arbitrary exercise of power that too without assigning any special reason as to why the authority acted contrary to its earlier show cause notice. He submits that there was no further show cause notice issued to him for change in the proposed punishment and departmental appeal was decided in a routine manner affirming the decision of the disciplinary authority without considering this aspect of the matter.

7. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has further argued before this Court that since charge levelled in the departmental enquiry was based upon the allegations made in the first information report, the departmental enquiry ought to have awaited for the outcome of the criminal trial but instead, it proceeded on its own relying upon the statements of those very persons whose testimony was to be recorded in the criminal trial. He submits that the trial court virtually disbelieved the statements made as it did not find there to be sufficient evidence in support of charge, and thus gave him a clean chit by acquitting him in the criminal case vide final judgment and order dated 31st July, 2023 and even directed for proceeding against Nagesh @ Kanhaiya, the main complainant to be proceeded with under Section 344 of the Cr.P.C., 1973.

8. Learned Standing Counsel on the contrary has argued that merely because accused has been acquitted in criminal trial, he could not be said to deserve automatic exoneration in the departmental enquiry as well. He submits that principle that evidence be such that guilt is proved to the hilt as required in criminal law, is not attracted in the disciplinary proceedings and enquiry officer is not required to go for such a sound and strict proof of evidence. He submits that the principle of 'preponderance of probability' is the guiding principle in matters of departmental enquiry and enquiry officer after evaluating and appreciating evidence before it, can conclude t