HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 21052 OF 2003 . DATED 30th Septebmer, 2011. BETWEEN P.K. Babu …Petitioner And The Inspector General of Police, CRPF Office of the IGPCRPF, Southern Sector, Hyderabad and anr ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 21052 of 2003 ORDER: Heard the learned Counsel. Perused the case file meticulously. Questioning the validity and legality of the order of dismissal from service, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. The petitioner was appointed as a CT/Driver in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) in the year 1983. While so, he was charge sheeted along with another on 18.8.2000 on the ground of misconduct alleged to have been committed by them. Dissatisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the said charge sheet, the respondent-CRPF conducted an enquiry and found him guilty of the charges levelled against him. Basing on the same, the disciplinary authority removed the petitioner from service by its order dated 2.4.2001. The appeal and second appeal (review) thereafter preferred by the petitioner against removal from service stood rejected. Hence the present writ petition. On the ground that the petitioner drove the respondent-CRPF vehicle on 12.7.2000 at about 17.30 hours unauthorizedly which was in the charge of CT/Driver Babajan, a joint memorandum of charge sheet was issued on 18.8.2000. Articles of Charges I and II were framed against the said Babajan and Articles of Charges III and IV were framed against the petitioner and proceeded on enquiry. During the course of driving the vehicle unauthorizedly by the petitioner and another namely Babajan, they caused an accident. Basing on the same, a case in Crime No.148 of 2000 was registered on the file of the Station House Officer, Police Station, Chandrayanagutta. The said crime was tried in C.C.No.8 of 2001 by the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad and acquitted them of all charges by judgment dated 16.4.2003. The case of the petitioner is that he was removed from service after following the due process of departmental enquiry. The appeal and review thereafter were rejected. In respect of some of the allegations which led to the framing of charges, the petitioner was also prosecuted in C.C.No. 8 of 2001 wherein by judgment dated 16.4.2003 the XIV MM acquitted him of charges levelled against him. As such, the said acquittal in the Calendar Case warrants invalidation of the order of dismissal passed after the departmental enquiry. The respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. It is their main case that the departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings are distinct and different in nature. A perusal of the charges levelled against the petitioner in the departmental inquiry are that the petitioner was charge sheeted on the ground of misconduct viz., unauthorizedly driving the CRPF vehicle from Chandrayanagutta to GC campus, CRPF, Hyderabad and thereby causing an accident. The Criminal proceedings are initiated for the offences punishable under Sections 338 (causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others) and 177 IPC (furnishing false information). As regards the contention of the petitioner, the law is well settled on this aspect. The approach and objective in criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings are altogether distinct and different. In the disciplinary proceedings the preliminary question is whether the employee is guilty of such conduct as would merit action against him, whereas in criminal proceedings the question is whether the offences registered against him are established and if established what sentence should be imposed upon him. The standard of proof, the mode of enquiry and the rules governing the enquiry and trial are conceptually different. In case of disciplinary enquiry the technical rules of evidence have no application. The doctrine of "proof beyond doubt" has no application. Preponderance of probabilities and some material on record are necessary to arrive at the conclusion whether or not the delinquent has committed misconduct. The Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Sarvesh Berry held as follows: “The purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution is two different and distinct aspects. The criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of a duty the offender owes to the society, or for breach of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. So crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. It would, therefore, be expedient that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible. It is not, therefore, desirable to lay down any guidelines as inflexible rules in which the departmental proceedings may or may not be stayed pending trial in criminal case against the delinquent officer. Each case requires to be considered in the backdrop of its own facts and circumstances. There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental enquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the charge in the criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law. Offence generally implies infringement of public duty, as distinguished from mere private rights punishable under criminal law. When trial for criminal offence is conducted it should be in accordance with proof of the offence as per the evidence defined under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 (in short the 'Evidence Act'). Converse is the case of departmental enquiry. The enquiry in a departmental proceedings relates to conduct or breach of duty of the delinquent officer to punish him for his misconduct defined under the relevant statutory rules or law. That the strict standard of proof or applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded is a settled legal position. Under these circumstances, what is required to be seen is whether the department enquiry would seriously prejudice the delinquent in his defence at the trial in a criminal case. It is always a question of fact to be considered in each case depending on its own facts and circumstances. A three-judge Bench of this Court in Depot Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs.Mohd. Yousuf Miya (1997)IILLJ902SC , analyzed the legal position in great detail on the above lines” For the foregoing settled legal principle and in as much as no other grounds are urged, I do not see any merit in the Writ Petition, which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------------ -- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 30th September, 2011. Msnro