CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.358 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 15,2010 Sardara Ram .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner, accused of allegation under the Prevention of Corruption Act, for which he faced criminal prosecution, has filed this writ petition for setting-aside the order of his dismissal dated 9.2.2008 and to reinstate him into service on the ground that he has been acquitted of criminal charge preferred against him on the basis of same set of allegations. An FIR was lodged against the petitioner, while he was serving as ASI on 10.7.2007 under Section 7 of the Prevention of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.358 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: Corruption Act. For the same allegation, the petitioner was charge sheeted and enquiry was conducted against him. It is alleged that the petitioner was caught red handed while accepting a sum of Rs.5000/-, which was also recovered from him by the raiding party. The Enquiry Officer found the charges proved against the petitioner and submitted an enquiry report on 3.12.2007. The petitioner had also been placed under suspension as he was placed under arrest. On the basis of finding given by the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner was dismissed from service on 9.2.2008. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by Inspector General of Police and so to was the fate of his revision, which was dismissed by the D.G.P on 7.2.2009. The trial of the petitioner was continued simultaneously. On 2.4.2009, the petitioner was acquitted of the criminal charge by giving him benefit of doubt. The petitioner accordingly has filed this petition with a prayer to set-aside the order of his dismissal and to reinstate him. An alternative prayer is also made to review the punishment of dismissal and to reduce it to some lesser punishment, allowing the petitioner to retire from service which was due in the normal course w.e.f. 18.2.2009. The issue whether acquittal on a criminal charge would have effect on the punishment imposed by a department is by now fairly settled. Standard of proof in a criminal case to convict a person is entirely different than the requirement to establish a misconduct in a departmental proceedings. In a criminal proceedings it is the bounden responsibility and duty of the prosecution to prove the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.358 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: offence beyond any reasonable doubt. That stringent standard of proof is not the need in a departmental proceedings. Reference in this regard can be made to the observations recorded in the case of Ajit Kumar Nag Vs. G.M. (P.J.) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Haldia & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 4217. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case observed that acquittal by a criminal Court does not preclude an employer from taking an action if it is otherwise permissible. The Court has observed that law in this regard is fairly well settled and acquittal by a criminal Court would not debar an employer from exercising power in accordance with the rules and regulations in force. Taking about different standard of proof in criminal and departmental proceedings to establish the charges, the Court has observed as under:- “....The two proceedings-criminal and departmental-are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with service Rules. In a criminal trial, incriminating statement made by the accused in certain circumstances or before certain officers is totally inadmissible in evidence. Such strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental proceedings. The degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency. The rule relating to appreciation of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.358 OF 2010 :{ 4 }: evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused `beyond reasonable doubt', he cannot be convicted by a court of law. In departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of `preponderance of probability'. Acquittal of the appellant by a Judicial Magistrate, therefore, does not ipso facto absolve him from the liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Corporation. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the contention of the appellant that since he was acquitted by a criminal court, the impugned order dismissing him from service deserves to be quashed and set-aside.” Recently, this Court has considered the entire issue in Civil Writ Petition No.10114 of 2010 (Rajinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others) and after making reference to various judgments like Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Mohd. Yousuf Miyan, 1997 (2) SCC 699, State of Rajasthan Vs. B.K.Meena and others, 1996(6) SCC 417, South Bengal State Transport Corpn. Vs. Swapan Kumar Mitra and others, JT 2006 (2) SC 307 and reiterated this position accordingly. This was the precise ground argued before the Supreme Court, Nelson Motis Vs. Union of India and others, 1992(4) SCC 711 and Mohd.Janimiya Vs. A.P.State Road Transport CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.358 OF 2010 :{ 5 }: Corporation, Secunderabad, 2006(5) S.L.R. 520. In State of M.P. and another Vs. Shiv Narayan Singh Rajoriya and another, 2007 (2) SLR 370, it is held that acquittal in a criminal case can not ipso- facto has effect of the departmental proceedings on the punishment imposed in the departmental proceedings. Thus, the plea of the petitioner that acquittal in a criminal case would have affect on the order of his dismissal can not be accepted. This plea is accordingly declined. I am also not inclined to accept the submission that the case of the petitioner is required to be considered for award of some lesser penalty in view of his retirement on superannuation, which was due on 18.2.2009. The petitioner was accused of serious offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. How the corruption has eaten the very foundation of society would not need any emphasis. The petitioner was caught red handed while accepting bribe. The offences under the said Act can certainly be termed as such offences, which are involving moral turpitude. This issue again was discussed by this Court in detail in Civil Writ Petition No.6454 of 2009 decided on 9.11.2009. After making reference to The Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway Vs. T.R.Chellappan, (1976) 3 SCC 190, Union of India Vs. V.K.Bhaskar (1997) 11 SCC 383 and Om Parkash Vs.Director, Postal Services (Post & Telegraphic Department), AIR 1973 P&H 1, this Court has held that in a case of conviction for bribe, it would not be possible to view the allegation with any leniency to consider the award of punishment other than dismissal. Though, the petitioner now is no more under stigma of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.358 OF 2010 :{ 6 }: conviction for an offence of bribe and that ratio of law in this case may not strictly apply to the facts of the present case but the issue under consideration is whether the petitioner can be shown any leniency. The petitioner was found guilty of the allegation made against him in the departmental proceedings for accepting bribe. The allegation proved are for such an offence which would not call for any leniency. A menace of bribe in a society is worst curse and is required to be curbed with heavy hand. No case for interference in the quantum of punishment, thus, is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. November 15, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE