1 THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No. 292/2010 in Writ Petition No. 1204/2009 (d) Ajab Chintamanrao Multaikar ..vs. Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jati and Nomadic Tribes Development Corporation Ltd. Nagpur ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Jaiswal, Advocate for appellant. Mr. Moharir, Advocate for respondent. CORAM: S. A. BOBDE & P. D. KODE, JJ DATED : 10 th DECEMBER, 2010 1. Heard. 2. This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant against the imposition of penalty of dismissal as a result of departmental enquiry and it is upheld by the Labour Court and Industrial Court. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the fact of appellant's acquittal in the criminal prosecution, which was initiated in respect of the same facts and circumstances, was not available when the revision was pending before the Industrial Court and, therefore, the order of the Industrial Court, upholding 2 the penalty of dismissal was liable to be reconsidered by the learned Single Judge in the light of the acquittal. 3. There is no dispute that the judgment, acquitting the appellant of the charge of accepting the bribe, was indeed available when the learned Single Judge decided the writ petition. Indeed, we find that the matter has been considered at length on the basis of the observations of the Supreme Court in Pandiya Roadways Corporation Ltd. ..vs.. N. Balakrishnan; AIR 2008 SC 2146, more particularly in paragraph 21 and 22 thereof, which read as under:- “21. There are evidently two lines of decisions of this Court operating in the field. One being the cases which would come within the purview of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. And G. M. Tank V. State of Gujarat. However, the second line of decisions show that an honourable acquittal in the criminal case itself may not be held to be determinative in respect of order of punishment meted out to the delinquent officer, inter alia, when; (I) the order of acquittal has not been passed on the same set of facts or same set of evidence (ii) the effect of difference in the standard of 3 proof in a criminal trial and disciplinary proceeding has not been considered (see Comm. Of Police v. Narender Singh), or: where the delinquent officer was charged with something more than the subject matter of the criminal case and/or covered by a decision of the civil Court (see G. M. Tank Jasbir Singh v. Punjab and Sind Bank and Noida Entrepreneurs' Assn. v. Noida, para 18) 22.In Narinder Mohan Arya v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. this Court held; (SCC p. 729, paras 39-41) “39. Under certain circumstances, a decision of a civil court is also binding upon the criminal court although, converse is not true. (See Karam Chand Ganga Prasad v. Union of India). However, it is also true that the standard of proof in a criminal case and civil case is different.”....”(Only relevant part of extracted)” 4. We find that after applying the observations of the Supreme Court, the learned Single Judge has came to the conclusion that the appellant was acquitted because of the application of the strict standard of proof applicable in criminal case that is to say requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt. In fact, the relevant part of the judgment 4 of this Court, by which the appellant was acquitted, has been reproduced by learned Single Judge. Para 16 of the said judgment reads as follows:- “16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it does not stand to reason that a clerk would demand Rs.500/- only to forward the application to Regional Manager. As regards the thrusting of the notes in the pocket, suggestions were given to the witnesses, but they denied. Only because they denied the suggestions, they cannot be said to be truthful witnesses. We have to consider various circumstances while appreciating the evidence of the witnesses. As I have earlier observed that though it is alleged that the notes were handed over to the accused and accused kept the same in the pocket of the pant this aspect is negative by the report of the Chemical Analyzer regarding the trace were of the anthracene powder. Similarly, there is contradictory versions regarding the demand alleged to have made initially in the office and thereafter on the road. This aspect has not been supported by the panch witness. Thus, giving conscious thought to the evidence on record, it is difficult to believe the story put forth by the complainant that the accused had demanded the amount of RS. 500/- and 5 settled to Rs. 400/- and accepted the same on 25/7/1986. The evidence of the prosecution has not been considered by the Trial Court in true and correct perspective and arrived at a wrong finding of conviction. The prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused demanded the amount of Rs. 400/- and accepted the same. As such the conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside.” 5. We find that the learned Single Judge has rightly pointed out that the judgments of the learned Member, Industrial Court and learned Judge, Labour Court are based on evidence and do not suffer from any defect such as drawing any incorrect inference. 6. In the circumstances, we see no merit in the appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE kahale