IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.458 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 7.4.2010 ASI Rajender Parshad -----Appellant Vs. State of Haryana and others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. Mohit Garg, Advocate for the appellant. i) Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ii) To be referred to the reporters or not? iii) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant against order of dismissal from service. 2. Case of the appellant is that he was serving in the Haryana Police as Assistant Sub Inspector. He was tried under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and acquitted on 13.5.2008. Still, departmental enquiry was conducted against him and charge of corruption was held to be proved which led to order of dismissal from service. In the writ LPA No.458 of 2010 (O&M) petition filed against order of dismissal, grievance of the appellant was that order of dismissal from service could not be passed on the same allegation on which he had been acquitted. 3. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that standard of proof required in a departmental enquiry is different from standard of proof in a criminal case and thus, mere acquittal in a criminal case was no bar to action in departmental proceedings on charge being established. Reliance was placed on judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Noida Enterprises Association v. Noida and others, AIR 2007 SC 1161, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghathan and others v. T.Srinivas, (2004) 7 SCC 442, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and others v. Sarvesh Berry, (2005) 10 SCC 471, Uttranchal Road Transport Corporation v. Mansaram Nainwal, (2006) 6 SCC 366, Union of India and another v. Bihari Lal Sidhana, (1997) 4 SCC 385 and Capt. M.Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited and another, AIR 1999 SC 1416. It was further observed:- “In the instant case, it cannot be said that the evidence in the departmental as well as criminal proceedings was the same without there being any iota of difference. Thus, the distinction, 2 LPA No.458 of 2010 (O&M) which is usually proved between the departmental and criminal proceedings on the basis of approach and burden of proof would be applicable in the instant case. Accordingly, I am not inclined to accept the submission made by the counsel in this regard.” 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 5. Only contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that under the police rules, departmental action on the same evidence which was led before criminal court was barred. 6. We are unable to accept the submission. In the present case, the action has not been taken on the same evidence which was led before the criminal court but on the basis of evidence which was led in the departmental enquiry. 7. We do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. 8. The appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge April 7, 2010 (Alok Singh) ‘gs’ Judge 3 LPA No.458 of 2010 (O&M) 4