IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 6341 of 2003 Sri Ram Kishore Prasad Yadav, son of late Rajnandan Yadav, resident of Village – Chak Mahila, P S & P O – Sitamarhi, Subdivision – Sitamarhi West, Dist – Sitamarhi, Ex-Junior, Sitamarhi Municipality - Petitioner Versus 1) The State of Bihar through the Secretary Urban Development Department, Bikash Bhawan, Patna 2) The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi, District – Sitamarhi, Bihar 3) The Executive Officer, Sitamarhi Municipality, Sitamarhi, Bihar 4) The Chairman, Sitamarhi Municipality, Sitamarhi, Bihar - Respondents *** For respondents No 3 & 4 : M/s Sushmita Mishra & Krishna Ballabha Sharma, Advocates *** 6 03.07.2009 The petitioner was working in Sitamarhi Municipality as a Junior Engineer. It was alleged that he wrongly interfered with the records of the Municipality and as a consequence whereof, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. After enquiry, the departmental proceedings ended in termination of the services of the petitioner by order of the Chairman of the Municipality dated 11.07.1986 finding the petitioner guilty. For alleged interpolation in the records, a criminal case was also instituted against the petitioner. In the meantime, petitioner filed appeal and representation against his dismissal which were all rejected. In the criminal case, chargesheet was submitted and after trial, petitioner was acquitted by judgment and order dated 13.02.2001. Petitioner, thereafter, made representations to the authorities that as a consequence of his acquittal, his dismissal order be recalled and he should be reinstated. That having not been done, the petitioner had approached this Court. It is submitted that the criminal 2 case was on the same issue as the case relates to his dismissal from service. He having been acquitted in the criminal case, he should be restored his service. Learned counsel for the respondents points out, in absence of the counsel for the petitioner who has been absent for the past several days when the case was called out, that the law is otherwise. It is submitted that in a criminal case, the trial is based on strict rules of evidence. As such, merely because a person was acquitted in a criminal case, his departmental proceedings cannot be set aside. It is a different matter where as a consequence of the conviction in criminal case, a person is dismissed. There the dismissal was solely based on the criminal prosecution and if that ends in acquittal, the service has to be restored. That is not the case here. In that view of the matter, solely because the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case, his service cannot be restored. The writ application does not merit consideration. It is dismissed accordingly. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)