IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.58 of 2007 MOST.DHANPATI DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 04- 26.08.2008 Heard Mr. Bhairaw Nand Sharma for the petitioner, and Mr. Neeraj Nandan, learned Government Pleader No.8, for the opposite parties. This application has been filed by the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No.12851 of 1999 (Most. Dhanpati Devi Vs. The State of Bihar and others) for review, and/or recall of the order dated 23.8.2005 (Annexure-3), whereby the writ petition was dismissed. 2. A brief summary of facts leading to the present review application may be indicated. The petitioner’s late husband (Chandrika yadav) was a Class-IV employee of the Bihar Government. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him for being a party to defalcation of the Government fund in the office where he was posted. The departmental proceeding resulted in dismissal of Chandrika Yadav by order dated 23.7.1988. The same was challenged in this Court by preferring C.W.J.C. No.12851 of 1999, which was lodged in this Court on 23.12.1999. Simultaneous to initiation of the departmental proceeding, a 2 criminal case was also started against Chandrika Yadav on the self same facts. The trial had resulted in conviction leading to Cr. Appeal No.111 of 1993, and the analogous appeal. Those appeals were allowed by common judgment dated 19.1.1998, passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, a photo copy of which was marked Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The writ petition was disposed of by the said order dated 23.8.2005 (Annexure-3), mainly on the ground that the writ petition has been lodged in this Court after a delay of more than eleven years. It was further observed therein that this Court did not feel satisfied that Chandrika Yadav was appellant in the aforesaid appeal. Aggrieved by the said order dated 23.8.2005 (Annexure-3), the petitioner preferred L.P.A. No.1135 of 2005 (Most. Dhanpati Devi Vs. The State of Bihar & others), which was disposed of by the following order dated 13.2.2007: “Heard. This appeal is dismissed. However, the appellant will be at liberty to file a review application, if so advised.” Sd/- Narayan Roy, J. Sd/- J.N. Singh, J. Hence this review application. 3 3. While pressing this application learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the materials have now been placed on record to satisfy this Court that Chandrika Yadav was an appellant in the criminal appeal which had been allowed and the conviction had been set aside. He next submits that in view of the acquittal of the late employee, the order of dismissal from service may also be set aside. 4. The learned Government Pleader has opposed this application. 5. I have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. In view of the materials on record, I would proceed on the assumption that Chandrika Yadav was an appellant in the criminal appeal which was allowed, and the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial court was set aside by giving him the benefit of doubt. However, I do not find it possible to agree with the other contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that the judgment of acquittal Per se entitles him to setting aside of the order of dismissal from service. Law is well settled that departmental proceeding and criminal proceeding can be initiated on self-same facts 4 and can proceed parallel to each other. Favourable result in one cannot enure to the benefit of that person in other case. This is, inter alia, for the reason that the standards of proof in the two proceedings are fundamentally different. Whereas the standard of proof in criminal case is that the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubts. On the other hand, in a civil proceeding and that too in a departmental proceeding, the balance of probabilities is the standard of proof. Furthermore, separate sets of evidence are led in both the proceedings. In that view of the matter, the contention is rejected. 6. Another important aspect of the matter is that the previous writ petition was filed after a delay of eleven years. 7. I do not find any merit in this review application and is accordingly rejected. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/