IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13013 of 2003 PRASURAM SINGH, son of late Brahamadeo Singh, resident of village Bisunpurs, Police Station- Isuapur in the District of Sarna of Chapra. … petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Commissioner, Saran Division 3. District Magistrate, Saran (Chapra) 4. District Superintendent of Education, Chapra. 5. District Education Officer, Saran, Chapra. .. Respondens. ----------- 3. 23.09.2010 No one appears for the petitioner. Mr. Zaki Haidar, A.C. to G.A.10 for the State is present. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reading as follows:- “(1)(a) That this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ/direction/order in the nature of Certiorury for quashing the order dated 6.5.03 (Annexure-9) passed by learned Commissioner, Saran Division Chapra whereby and whereunder he has confirmed the order of the learned collector, Saran at Chapra by which through D.S.E., Chapra, he has stopped five increments with commutative effect.” appears to be wholly misconceived inasmuch as what the petitioner literally aims to achieve is quashing of the order of his punishment dated 17.11.1990 which had also stood confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide his order dated 7.5.1991 in Misc. Appeal No. 9/91-92. 2 Therefore, the delay of more than 13 years in moving this Court against the original order of punishment by way of stopping five increments of the petitioner way back in the year 1991 by itself would be good enough to dismiss this writ application. Additionally, this Court would find that the petitioner, a teacher who was entrusted with the job of Invigilator was proceeded departmentally on serious charges of allowing unfair means and committing corrupt practices in the examination. A departmental proceeding was also conducted wherein the Enquiry Officer after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner had found the charges against him to be proved as would be evident from following paragraph; “3- ijh{kk ds fy, dqy 74 mRrj iqfLrdk fuxZr dh x;h tks Jh ij'kqjke flag] fuyfEcr f'k{kd }kjk izkir fd;k x;kA iz'kky ds fy, mRrj iqfLrdk la[;k 439092 FkhA iz'kky esa Jh ij'kqjke flag] Jh Hksjo Hkxr ,oa Jh /khjsUnz flag ls Hkh iwN&rkN Øe esa mifLFkr ugha gq,A oh{kd dk dk;Z dj jgs FksA Jh HkSjo Hkxr oh{kd ls ijh{kkdky; esa gqbZ dnkpkfjrk ds lEcU/k esa i`PNk dh x;h rks os crk;s fd jkSy dksM 9128 Øekad 265 ds xksn esa ,d uotkr f'k'kq Fkk ftls nw/k fiykus ds cgkus ls ,d yM+dh vkrh tkrh FkhA bldh i`f"V dsUnzkf/k{kd }kjk Hkh dh x;hA ijh{kkFkhZ mRrj iqfLrdk ij dqN fy[k jgh FkhA mRrj iqfLrdk dk Øekad D;k Fkk ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk gSA p¡wfd ijh{kk lekfIr ds ckn ge lHkh oh{kd mRrj iqfLrdk tek djus pys rks ,d O;fDr us Jh ij'kqjke flag dks lEcksf/kr dj cqyk;k ij os 3 geyksxksa ds lkFk dsUnzk/kh{kd ds ikl pys x;sA geyksxksa us dsUnzk/kh{kd ds ikl 74 ¼pkSgRrj½ mRrj iqfLrdk tek dj nhA dqy 74 mRrj iqfLrdk izkfIr dh iqf"V dsUnzk/kh{kd }kjk Hkh dh x;hA 5- Jh ij'kqjke flag] fuyafcr f'k{kd ls iwN rkN djus ij mUgksaus crk;k fd mRrj iqfLrdk la[;k 489092 jkSy dksM 9128 Øekad 265 ckgj gS iz'kky ds Hkhrj ijh{kk lekfIr ds le; ,d }kjk mUgsa nsus dk iz;kl fd;k x;k ijUrq os ugha fy;sA iz'kky ds fy;s 74 mRrj iqfLrdk fuxZr gqbZ ,oa 74 gh tek dh x;hA vr% izekf.kr gksrk gS fd mRrj iqfLrdk izfrfnu Nk=ksa ds vuqikr ls vf/kd fuxZr gksrh FkhA vf/kd fuxZr mRrj iqfLrdk ds pyrs tek dh x;h mRrj iqfLrdk ;Fkkor~ jghA vr% iz'kky ls mRrj iqfLrdk la[;k 489098 xk;c gksus dh ckr lR; gSA mi;qDr rF;ksa ls Li"V gksrk gS fd bl dsUnz ij dnkpkfjrk vklkuh ls py jgh FkhA dsUnz v/kh{kd lfgr dejk ua0 9 ds oh{kd] iz'kky ds oh{kd] mRrj iqLrd ds forj.k esa yxs lnL; ;g lc gh vius nkf;Ro dk fuokZg fu"Bk iwoZd ugha dj jgs FksA Jh ij'kqjke flag Hkh blh fof/k O;oLFkk esa yxs FksA” Thus, the order of punishment based on such finding cannot be said to be either harsh or disproportionate taking into account that the petitioner is a teacher whose prime duty was/is to ensure fairness in the examination. The only limb of submission made in the petition that since there was also a criminal case and in the said criminal case the petitioner was acquitted of the charge by the trial court by order dated 1.12.1995 would also not impress this Court inasmuch as such acquittal of 4 the petitioner was on a technical ground as would be apparent from the following considerations made by the trial court. “;g fd esjh lafpd; esa 2-2-92 dks Jh txnh'k izlkn f}0U;k0n.Mk0 ds :ikUrj.k ds QyLo:i vk/kkj lk{; dHkh mifLFkr ugha gq,A vr% lk{; ds vHkko esa ds'k dks vkxz pykuk U;ksfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gSA bl ds'k dh vafre dkjZokbZ lekIr dh tkrh gSA vfHk;qDr Jh ij'kqjke flag dks nks"k eqDr fd;k tkrk gSA rFkk tekurnkjksa dks Hkh chp ckWUM ds nkf;Ro ls eqDr fd;k tkrk gS vfHk;qDr mifLFkr gSA” There is no inflexible rule that an employee already punished in a departmental proceeding on being acquitted by Court on identical charge will automatically entitle him for also being exonerated from charges in the departmental proceeding by way of review of the order of punishment. The standard of proof in the two proceedings are entirely different. The preponderance of probability is the base for deciding a departmental proceeding whereas the charge beyond reasonable doubt has to be proved in a criminal case. That being so, the application filed by the petitioner for review of the order of punishment before the Disciplinary Authority and its rejection by the Commissioner does not suffer from any error nor the same 5 can be made a cause of action by the petitioner when he did not choose to assail the original order of punishment passed against him in the year 1990 which had also stood affirmed in the order of the appellate authority passed in the year 1991. That being so, there is no merit in this writ application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)