RSA 3639 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYNA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA 3639 of 2009 Date of decision:3.2.2011 Islamudin appellant vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Gurgaon & Others Respondent Present: Mr. Surinder Dagar, Advocate. Mr. PS Sullar, DAG, Hry M.M.S.BEDI,J. Aggrieved by the punishment in departmental proceedings stopping two increments with cumulative effect, the plaintiff- appellant filed a suit for declaration challenging the punishment inter alia on the ground that he has been acquitted in a criminal case u/s 279/304 A IPC and that for the same act he has been penalized. The suit of the plaintiff- appellant was decreed by the trial court vide decree dated 30.7.2008 but in appeal, filed by the defendant-State, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed taking into consideration his conduct of having been punished vide different orders Ex.D1, D3,D4,D5 to D12. The lower appellate court, taking into consideration the show cause notice Ex.D17 dated 3.8.2002 and Ex.D18 dated 26.9.2002 notice of personal hearing, arrived at a conclusion that fair opportunity has been granted to the plaintiff-appellant during the departmental proceedings. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that once the appellant has been acquitted by the criminal court, the departmental proceedings in the same act are not sustainable, as such the departmental punishment is unreasonable and harsh. RSA 3639 of 2009 2 I have considered the facts and circumstances of this case. The standard of proof, which is required for conviction in a criminal trial is stringent than the standard of proof, required in the departmental proceedings for the act of misconduct attributed to a government employee. The appreciation of evidence in departmental proceedings is on the basis of preponderance of evidence whereas in criminal trial it should have been free from any shadow of doubt. It is a settled principle of law that a government employee cannot be penalized by the department on the basis of conviction simpliciter but he can always be punished for the conduct, which has led to his conviction. In the present case, taking into consideration the negligent conduct of the appellant, departmental punishment has been imposed upon him. The department has already taken a lenient view and granted a lesser punishment to the appellant. Even otherwise, no substantial question of law has been pointed out. Dismissed without prejudiced to the right of the plaintiff- appellant to avail the remedy under the Punishment and Appeal Rules, applicable to the plaintiff-appellant. February 3 ,2011 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE