CW– 3958/95 -Gordhan Ram Vs. Managing Director,RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. Judgment dt.11.9.08 1/3 c1 S.B. CIVILWRIT PETITION NO.3958/1995 Gordhan Ram Vs. Managing Director,RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. Date of order : 11th September, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. K.R. Choudhary for the petitioner. Mr. V.K. Mathur with Mr. Lokesh Mathur for the respondents. --------- 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned penalty order dated 12.7.1993 whereby the petitioner, a driver of R.S.R.T.C. bus was found guilt of misconduct of rash and negligent driving of the bus. The penalty in question imposed under Section 36 (2) of the Standing Order is by way of withholding of two grade increments with cumulative effect and also payment of Rs.4,000/- for compensation for causing loss to the property of RSRTC. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that merely because the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal trial by the competent criminal Court vide Annex.2 dated 16.12.1994 under Sections 279, 337 and 338 I.P.C. as the prosecution failed to establish the case, the departmental action could not be said to be without foundation and relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Depot Manager, Andhra Pardesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Mohd.Yusuf Miya etc. - AIR 1997 SC 2232 he submitted that the departmental enquiry and criminal trial CW– 3958/95 -Gordhan Ram Vs. Managing Director,RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. Judgment dt.11.9.08 2/3 were two different matters and the fate of departmental enquiry need not necessarily and solely depend upon the fate of criminal trial. It would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant part of the aforesaid decision:- “The nature of evidence in criminal trial is entirely different from the departmental proceedings. In the former, prosecution is to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the touchstone of human conduct. The standard of proof in the departmental proceedings is not the same as of the criminal trial. The evidence also is different from the standard point of Evidence Act. The evidence required in the departmental enquiry is not regulated by Evidence Act. Under these circumstances, what is required to be seen is whether the departmental enquiry would seriously prejudice the delinquent in his defence at the trial in a criminal case. It is always a question of fact to be considered in each case depending on its own facts and circumstances. Where departmental enquiry was launched against a driver on charge of failure to anticipate accident and prevention thereof, same having nothing to do with culpability of offence under Ss.304A and 338 for which criminal proceedings were also started against the delinquent the High Court should not have stayed departmental proceedings.” 3. In view of the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition and the impugned CW– 3958/95 -Gordhan Ram Vs. Managing Director,RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. Judgment dt.11.9.08 3/3 penalty order Annex.1 dated 12.7.1993 cannot be quashed merely on the ground that the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal trial by the competent court. 4. This writ petition is found to be devoid of merit. The same is accordingly dismissed. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.s/3 babulal/-