LPA No. 495 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 495 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: August 24, 2011 Pala Ram ...Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. K.S. Banyana, Advocate, for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? GURDEV SINGH, J. This appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent by Pala Ram —appellant/writ petitioner, is directed against the order dated 16.11.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge, vide which the writ petition filed by him for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing his termination order dated 10.3.1998 (Annexure P/3), was dismissed. The petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the Haryana Roadways and proceedings were initiated against him under Section 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeals) Rules, 1987 for having embezzled a sum of ` 34/- by not issuing tickets to the passengers travelling in the bus, after receiving the fare from them. The office Superintendent, LPA No. 495 of 2011 2 who was appointed as the Inquiry Officer, after completing the inquiry, submitted his report on 11.3.1997 and he found that the charges against the petitioner stood proved. After following the due procedure, the impugned order, terminating the services of the appellant-petitioner, was passed, which was challenged by filing writ petition relateable to the instant appeal. The learned Single Judge found that there was delay in filing the writ petition as the cause of action accrued to the petitioner first in the year 1998 and then in the year 2004, but he approached this court in the year 2010. The only contention raised before the learned Single Judge was that the petitioner already stands acquitted of the same charges in the criminal proceedings. That argument was negatived by making reference to the following judgments. (1) South Bengal State Transport Corpn. Vs. Swapan Kumar Mitra and others, J.T. 2006(2) 307; (2) NOIDA Entrepreneurs Vs. NOIDA & Ors., J.T. 2007(2) 620; (3) Mohd. Janimiya Vs. A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Secunderabad, 2006(5) S.L.R. 520. The same argument has been reiterated in this appeal. It was rightly concluded by the learned Single Judge that acquittal of the petitioner-appellant in the criminal case would not have any bearing on the order of termination passed on the basis of the domestic inquiry. For recording that finding, he took support of the ratio of the above said judgments. It has recently been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur versus Nemi Chand LPA No. 495 of 2011 3 Nalwaya 2011 (3) Recent Apex Judgments, 28, that when a delinquent employee is acquitted by the criminal court by giving benefit of doubt, that will not in any way render a completed disciplinary proceedings invalid nor will affect the validity of the finding of guilt or consequential punishment. The standard of proof required in criminal proceedings being different from the standard of proof required in departmental inquiries, the same charges and evidence may lead to different results in the two proceedings, that is, finding of guilt in departmental proceedings and an acquittal by giving benefit of doubt in the criminal proceedings. This is more so when the departmental proceedings are more proximate to the incident, in point of time, when compared to the criminal proceedings. The finding by the criminal court will have no effect on previously concluded domestic inquiry. Thus, the finding so recorded by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity. This appeal does not deserve admission and is dismissed accordingly. (M.M. KUMAR) (GURDEV SINGH ) JUDGE JUDGE August 24, 2011 prem