IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 403 of 2010 Date of Decision: January 13, 2010 Balwinder Singh …Petitioner Versus Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Rajesh Punj, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against order dated 5.5.2009 (P-18), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’) in OA No. 683/CH/2007. The Tribunal has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for quashing charge sheet dated 13.4.2006 (P-3), issued under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 (for brevity, ‘the Rules’). The petitioner had represented for dropping the charge sheet on the ground that the criminal prosecution was already launched. It is appropriate to mention that the Special Judge, CBI, Chandigarh, has even exonerated the petitioner vide order dated 3.5.2006 (P-5). Another prayer made by the petitioner was to set aside the order declining his prayer for engaging a counsel to appear before the Enquiry Officer. CWP No. 403 of 2010 Both the prayers have been rejected by the Tribunal by holding that Rule 3 of the Rules is applicable to the railway servants during all times whether they are on duty or not. The allegation in the charge sheet is that the petitioner had demanded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- and later he made a settlement for three cartons of Verka Desi Ghee. The aforesaid allegation has not even been controverted by him. The denial of the request to engage a counsel to assist him has not been found to be against the Rules. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner we are of the view that it cannot be concluded that the charge sheet is liable to be dropped merely because the prosecution has not been able to prove its case before the Special Judge CBI, Chandigarh. It is well settled that the standard of proof required in a criminal case is qualitatively different than what would be required in a departmental inquiry. The object of enquiry and criminal trial are also entirely different. For the aforesaid view reliance can be placed on a catena of judgments rendered in the cases of Ajit Kumar Jog v. Indian Oil Corporation, (2005) 7 SCC 764; Chairman-cum-M.D., T.N.C.S. Corporation Ltd. v. K. Meerabai, (2006) 2 SCC 255; Commissioner of Police, New Delhi v. Narender Singh, (2006) 4 SCC 265; Govind Das v. State of Bihar, (1997) 11 SCC 361; and Union of India v. Bihari Lal Sidhana, (1997 (4) SCC 385. There is, thus, no merit in the instant petition. For the reasons aforementioned, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) January 13, 2010 JUDGE 2 CWP No. 403 of 2010 Pkapoor 3