IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION (S/S) NO. 38 of 2001 Subhash Chandra Pant and another ....Petitioners. Versus State of Uttaranchal and others. ………Respondents. Present: Mr. S. K. Mandal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. N. P. Sah, Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.(Oral) Heard Mr. S. K. Mandal, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. N. P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioners were constables in the police department. An under trial who was in their custody escaped on 22.5.1998. Thereafter a preliminary inquiry was held to the incident and petitioners were charged and consequently departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioners. In the departmental proceedings, the charges against the petitioners were that they were negligent and there was dereliction of duties on their part which were found to be true and therefore the penalty of reduction to the lowest pay scale (of constable) for a period of three years were awarded to them. The contention of the petitioners was that on the same set of charges petitioners had also faced a criminal trial, where both of them have acquitted by trial court vide order dated 3.5.2005 which has become final. The order of the trial court is on record, which has also been perused. From the perusal of the trial court order it is clear that most of the witnesses against the petitioners in the trial had become hostile and the petitioners were not acquitted honorably but acquittal was granted to the petitioners giving the petitioners benefit of doubt. 2 Be that as it may, it is a settled principle of law that merely because a person has been acquitted in a criminal trial he would not be absolved of the charges in the departmental proceeding for the simple reason that the two proceedings are on a different footing altogether, whereas in criminal trial the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, it is not the case in the departmental proceeding where an incumbent who is charged of an offence can be punished on the basis of probability of circumstances against him. This is a settled legal position. The counsel for the petitioners has cited the case before this Court i.e. G. M. Tank Vs. State of Gujrat and others (2006) 5 SCC 446. The facts of the case are entirely different inasmuch as in that case person was honourably acquitted by the trial court which is not the case in the present case. This being the settled position of law even after the said decision that two proceedings were initiated on different footing. Counsel for the petitioners thereafter argued on the proportionality of sentence. According to the petitioner the alleged offence was not so serious in nature to have entailed major penalty of a reduction to the lowest pay scale. This Court is of the view, however, that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is in proportion to the crime committed by him. The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 04.8.2011 Kuldeep