CWP No. 7821 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 7821 of 2010 Date of decision May 3, 2010 Kali Dass ....... Petitioner Versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Shakti Bhawan, Sector 6, Panchkula. ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. John Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. **** K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The impugned order in challenge is a decision taken by the respondent on a representation given by the employee for reconsideration of the decision to compulsorily retire him from service by an order dated 18.4.2002 after instituting a charge against him for theft of electricity and for alleged pilfering of electricity by unauthorized means. Apart from the enquiry which was conducted departmentally, it appears that a criminal case had also been registered and simultaneous proceedings were going before a criminal Court also. After full fledged enquriy in the department conducted through one Sh. A.K. Raheja, as an enquiry officer. A report was submitted finding him guilty of the charges and serving him a show cause notice as to why disciplinary action shall not be taken in the light of the report of the enquiry officer, a reply given by the petitioner was considered and a punishment of compulsorily retirement was given, instead of extreme punishment of dismissal from service. 2. It appears that the criminal case ultimately ended CWP No. 7821 of 2010 2 in acquittal and the appeal filed by the State was also dismissed. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the charges in the departmental enquiry and the complaint in the criminal court were based on the same set of facts and witnesses were also the same. The compulsorily retirement which had been issued only on the basis of allegation of theft and when he was acquitted in the criminal Court, he was entitled for favourable consideration for review of the decision of compulsorily retiring him. 3. It is a fundamental principle of law that departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings operate in different fields and in service jurisprudence for domestic enquiry, the standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities, while in the criminal case nature of proof that is necessary is proof beyond reasonable doubt. The decision in a criminal case, acquitting a person will have no bearing to the departmental proceedings when the charges had been established, after going through the procedural formalities such as allowing the petitioner to participate in the enquiry, affording to him an opportunity to show cause against the findings and also against the proposed punishment. The order of termination derives its force only from the decision in departmental proceedings and would involve no violation of law by the fact that the criminal case judgment yielded on a different result where an acquittal had been given to him. 4. It is an admitted case that against him the punishment that was inflicted upon in the year 2002, the petitioner himself had filed a civil suit challenging the decision for retirement. The suit was dismissed and the appeal filed by him was also dismissed. The Regular Second Appeal has also been dismissed. The petitioner has exhausted his remedy even before the Civil Court and he cannot reopen the whole proceedings by giving a representation and seeking for review of the CWP No. 7821 of 2010 3 decision. 5. The writ petition is wholly misconceived and is dismissed as such. There shall, however, be no direction as to costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 3, 2010 archana