IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.153 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6284 OF 2007 Shri Arun Namdev Pawar ... Appellant Vs. Secretary/Chairman, Rashtriya Seva Parishad and others .. Respondents Mr. Neel G. Helekar for the appellant. Mr. C.K. Thomas for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 . CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 16TH DECEMBER, 2008 P.C.: The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 20th November, 2007 vide which he dismissed the writ petition filed by the present appellant. 2. The allegation against the petitioner is that while on duty, on 9.11.2004, the petitioner had stolen an amount of Rs.48,000/- from the cupboard in the school office. He was subjected to search and an amount of Rs.28,010/- was recovered from him. Thereafter, he was placed under suspension and chargesheet was issued. The petitioner did not return the balance amount and departmental enquiry was conducted under the provisions of MEPS Rules, 1981 in which he participated. A three Member committee was constituted in terms of Rule 36 which submitted its report and finally vide order dated 7th February, 2006 the services of the appellant were terminated. The appellant questioned the correctness of the order before the School Tribunal which dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 12th October, 2006. 3. Exception to the order of the Tribunal was taken by the present appellant by filing writ petition which, as already noticed, was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has mainly raised two contentions before us, one is that the onus in relation to article of charges had not been discharged and there is no finding that the charges have been proved beyond doubt. Secondly, in terms of Rule 37 of MEPS Rules, the Committee is expected to submit a combined report and once the combined report is not submitted, the entire proceedings stand vitiated and the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vidya Vikas Mandal and another v. Education Officer and another, 2007(3) Bom. C.R. 281. We are unable to find any merit in either of these contentions. The School Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge have rightly taken the view in the facts and circumstances of the case that the articles of charges have been proved. The concept of proof beyond reasonable doubt is not applicable to service jurisprudence. It is primarily a concept relating to criminal liability. In a departmental proceeding, the Disciplinary Authority has recorded its finding that the general articles of charges have been proved and the allegations constitute a misconduct within the service rules applicable to the appellant. Both these aspects have been duly taken care of and this court does not sit as a court of appeal in such matters. The learned Single Judge has exercised his judicial discretion which does not call for any interference. 5. As far as the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vidya Vikas Mandal (supra) is concerned, it hardly has any application to the facts of the present case inasmuch as in that case, no report had been submitted by the four members of the committee and, therefore, in that context, the Supreme Court observed that a `combined report' should be submitted. The expression `combined report' has to be understood in view of the language of Rule. 37 of MEPS Rules where it is intended that all the three members of the committee had applied their mind and submitted their report to the competent authority within the stipulated time. Essence of the provision is application of mind and submission of the report within the stipulated time by the members. Even on fact, the contention of the learned counsel that the third member (representative of the workman) had not submitted his report is factually incorrect. The two members have submitted their report on 7th February, 2006 which was duly signed by both of them finding that articles of charges have been proved. The third member also submitted separate report on the same day expressing his opinion primarily on the ground that police report had not been filed at the earliest. The Disciplinary Authority after considering the report of two other members found that the report leaves no doubt to hold that article of charges were proved. The report did not even raise any serious dispute that a sum of Rs.28,010/- had been recovered from the appellant though according to the appellant, he had voluntarily deposited the said amount that would be no ground for taking a different view than the one which has been taken by the first authority Tribunal. Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE, J.