IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4142 of 2004 SACHIDANAND RAI son of Late Baijnath Rai Resident of Village Bhatbigha, P.O. Dhanchhuhan, P.S. Chawari (Sahar), District Bhojpur. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR through Home Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2.The Director General Cum Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Patna. 4.Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna. 5.Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur, Arrah. ----------- 3 17/8/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Prayer in this writ application is to quash the order of dismissal pursuant to the departmental proceeding dated 28.7.1987 and the appellate order dated 7.6.1990 confirming the order of punishment only on the ground that subsequently by judgment of the Sessions Court dated 24.12.2003 the petitioner has been acquitted from the charges. First of all there is no explanation for the delay caused in moving this Court against the order of dismissal which was passed way back in the year 1987-88. The petitioner could not have waited for the result of the criminal case so as to challenge correctness of the order passed in the departmental proceeding. The delay therefore itself of 14 to 16 years is fatal for maintaining this writ application. That apart, standard of proving the charges in a departmental proceeding and the criminal case is not same. Whereas, in a departmental proceeding charges have to be proved 2 on the preponderance of probabilities, in the criminal trial charges have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, after the departmental proceeding was held the enquiry officer, on the basis of evidence recorded, had found all the charges to be proved. Counsel for the petitioner, in fact, has not been able to point out any infirmity in the departmental enquiry, save and except, that such enquiry in the first instance should not have been conducted because they were based on identical charges as in the criminal case. In the opinion of this Court, there is no bar for holding departmental enquiry in relation to the charges for which a criminal case is also pending. In any event, if the petitioner was so sanguine he had to move the authority for postponing the departmental proceeding till the departmental enquiry was completed and in the event such prayer was rejected, he could have approached the court of law, but having taken a chance in such departmental proceeding he cannot now be allowed after 17 years to question the continuance of departmental proceeding on the ground of pendency of a criminal case. Reliance placed by counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ‘CAPT. M. PAUL ANTHONY Vs. BHARAT GOLD MINES LTD. AND ANOTHER’ reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 is also wholly misplaced, inasmuch as, in that very judgment in paragraph 22 the proposition of law has been laid down in the following manner:- “The conclusions which are 3 deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are: (i)Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. (ii)If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involved complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. (iii)Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge-sheet. (iv)The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. (v)If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest.” In the present case such departmental proceeding had already been concluded in the year 1987-88 and therefore once counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to explain either delay in filing this writ petition or pointing out any fatal infirmity in the departmental proceeding, there would be hardly any scope for this 4 Court to interfere with such order of punishment in a departmental proceeding only on the ground that subsequently after 16 years of such punishment the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case. That being so, this application is devoid any merit and is accordingly dismissed. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)