CWP No. 7821 of 2010

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

CWP No. 7821 of 2010

Date of decision May 3, 2010

Kali Dass

....... Petitioner

Versus

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Shakti Bhawan, Sector 6,

Panchkula.

........ Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

Present:-

Mr. John Kumar, Advocate for

Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate

for the petitioner.

****

K. Kannan, J (oral).

1.

The impugned order in challenge is a decision

taken by the respondent on a representation given by the employee for

reconsideration of the decision to compulsorily retire him from service by

an order dated 18.4.2002 after instituting a charge against him for theft of

electricity and for alleged pilfering of electricity by unauthorized means.

Apart from the enquiry which was conducted departmentally, it appears

that a criminal case had also been registered and simultaneous

proceedings were going before a criminal Court also. After full fledged

enquriy in the department conducted through one Sh. A.K. Raheja, as an

enquiry officer. A report was submitted finding him guilty of the charges and

serving him a show cause notice as to why disciplinary action shall not be

taken in the light of the report of the enquiry officer, a reply given by the

petitioner was considered and a punishment of compulsorily retirement was

given, instead of extreme punishment of dismissal from service.

2.

It appears that the criminal case ultimately ended

CWP No. 7821 of 2010

2

in acquittal and the appeal filed by the State was also dismissed. The

contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the charges in

the departmental enquiry and the complaint in the criminal court were

based on the same set of facts and witnesses were also the same. The

compulsorily retirement which had been issued only on the basis of

allegation of theft and when he was acquitted in the criminal Court, he was

entitled for favourable consideration for review of the decision of

compulsorily retiring him.

3.

It is a fundamental principle of law that

departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings operate in different

fields and in service jurisprudence for domestic enquiry, the standard of

proof is preponderance of probabilities, while in the criminal case nature of

proof that is necessary is proof beyond reasonable doubt. The decision in

a criminal case, acquitting a person will have no bearing to the

departmental proceedings when the charges had been established, after

going through the procedural formalities such as allowing the petitioner to

participate in the enquiry, affording to him an opportunity to show cause

against the findings and also against the proposed punishment. The order

of termination derives its force only from the decision in departmental

proceedings and would involve no violation of law by the fact that the

criminal case judgment yielded on a different result where an acquittal had

been given to him.

4.

It is an admitted case that against him the

punishment that was inflicted upon in the year 2002, the petitioner himself

had filed a civil suit challenging the decision for retirement. The suit was

dismissed and the appeal filed by him was also dismissed. The Regular

Second Appeal has also been dismissed. The petitioner has exhausted his

remedy even before the Civil Court and he cannot reopen the whole

proceedings by giving a representation and seeking for review of the

CWP No. 7821 of 2010

3

decision.

5.

The writ petition is wholly misconceived and is

dismissed as such. There shall, however, be no direction as to costs.

(K. KANNAN)

JUDGE

May 3, 2010

archana