THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.A.No.1265 of 2006 ORDER: (Per Sri G.M,J) 1 This Writ Appeal is filed against an interlocutory order dated 21.11.2006 passed by a learned single Judge of this court in W.V.M.P.No.3324 of 2004 in W.P.M.P.No.18303 of 2004 in W.P.No.14225 of 2004. 2 The facts, in brief, are that the writ petitioner questioned the charge sheet issued against him vide proceedings dated 30.04.2004 and the consequential appointment of the Enquiry Officer in exercise of powers under the Visakhapatnam Port Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1968, in the Writ Petition. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he was initially appointed as a clerk in the Marine Department of Visakhapatnam Port Trust in the year 1979 and subsequently was promoted as Labour Officer in the year 1992 and as a Labour he was looking after the canteen in the port. On a complaint of the authorised person on behalf of the contractor, the Central Bureau of Investigation laid a trap and a case was registered against him in C.C.No.2 of 2001 on the ground that he was caught red-handed while accepting a bribe of Rs.10,000/- In the said case, the petitioner was tried under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for CBI cases at Visakhapatnam. However, he was found not guilty of the charges framed against him and was ultimately acquitted of the said charges. 3 It is his further case that while the criminal proceedings were pending, disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against him by the Department by framing three charges, among which, the first charge relates to acceptance of bribe of Rs.10,000/- during the trap by the C.B.I. Then the petitioner approached this court and filed Writ Petition No.7439 of 2001 on the ground that as the charge is substantially same both in the criminal case and the departmental proceedings, if the departmental proceedings are allowed to go on, it will prejudice his case before the criminal court. Thereafter, the authorities withdraw the charge No.1 by reserving to enquiry the same at a later point of time, and, however, proceeded with the enquiry in respect of the other charges. It is stated that inasmuch as the petitioner admitted his guilty with regard to the charge Nos.2 & 3, the punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect was imposed. 4 Petitioner further submits that after the judgment was rendered in criminal case, the authorities have initiated departmental proceedings with reference to the allegation of receiving bribe of Rs.10,000/- from the authorised person of the contractor of the canteen. When the first charge was again framed and consequential orders of appointment of Inquiry Officer and the presenting officer were passed, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition i.e. W.P.No.14225 of 2004. In the said Writ Petition the petitioner filed W.P.M.P.No.18303 of 2004 wherein this court granted interim stay of initiation of departmental enquiry for a period of one month initially and subsequently the same was extended until further orders by order dated 01.12.2004. Questioning the same, the Respondent - Port Trust filed W.V.M.P.No.3324 of 2004 seeking vacation of the order passed in W.P.M.P.No.18303 of 2004. 5 The learned Single Judge of this court after hearing both sides modified the order dated 11.08.2004 as extended by order dated 01.12.2004 by permitting the respondents to proceed with the enquiry pursuant to the impugned proceedings in the Writ Petition. But, however, directed that no final orders shall be passed basing on the enquiry to be conducted till the Writ Petition is disposed of. As stated supra, aggrieved by the said order, this writ appeal is filed by the employee – Writ Petitioner. 6 The learned counsel for the writ petitioner contended that inasmuch as the charge is the same in departmental proceedings and the criminal proceedings and once the petitioner is acquitted of the charge in the criminal case, the authorities cannot conduct enquiry on the very same charge and on the similar facts and evidence. 7 On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Port Trust contended that inasmuch as standard or proof in criminal proceedings is different from that of the departmental enquiry and hence the order impugned deserves no interference. 8 It is needless to mention and as rightly observed by the learned single Judge that standard proof to convict a person in criminal proceedings is different from the proof required in a departmental enquiry since the charge levelled against the writ petitioner is required to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt, whereas in the departmental proceedings the proof is based on the preponderance of probabilities and the departmental enquiry stands on a different and distinct footing. Hence, the appellant cannot ask for striking down the very initiation of the departmental enquiry on the charge of taking bribe, which is an act of misconduct alleged against the employee. Hence, the learned single Judge is perfectly justified in directing respondent authorities to proceed with the enquiry, which in our considered opinion does not call for any interference since there is no material irregularity or illegality in the order impugned. 9 In the result, this writ appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. The Writ Petition shall be taken up for hearing on an early date. ------------------------------ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:28.07.2011 ---------------------- G. CHANDRAIAH, J Kvsn