IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4456 of 2007 SRINARAYAN SINGH, SON OF LATE JAGDAMBA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHANDAR, P.S. CHANDAN DISTT. LAKHISARAI, CONSTABLE NO.226, BIHAR MILITARY POLICE(BMP) 13 DARBHANGA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CUM INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE HOME (POLICE) DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE MILITARY POLICE (NORTH MIDDLE), MUZAFFARPUR 4. THE COMMANDANT, BIHAR MILITARY POLICE-13, DARBHANGA. For the petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate. For the State : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Advocate. ---------------------------------- 03. 18.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. At the relevant time petitioner served as Constable in the Military Police. He is aggrieved by the order bearing Memo No. 785 dated 18th October, 2005, Annexure-7, whereunder he has been reinstated in service but without salary for the period between 31.3.1995-17.8.2004 during which he remained under compulsory retirement pursuant to the punishment order which was set aside by the High Court under order dated 18.7.2004 passed in L.P.A. No. 649 of 2004, Annexure-4. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that while passing the impugned order dated 18th October, 2005 the authorities did not consider the fact that the other constable Shubh Kant Jha who was involved in the scuffle with the petitioner was 2 neither proceeded against nor punished and non- payment of salary to the petitioner for the aforesaid period is still harsh and excessive punishment imposed on the petitioner. 4. Aforesaid submission has been noted only for being rejected as while setting aside the punishment order this Court under orders dated 18.7.2004 took notice of the fact that no action was taken against Shubh Kant Jha who suffered injury and lodged Giridih P.S.Case No. 45 of 1993 dated 22.11.1993 in which charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner. During the trial petitioner was, however, discharged. In appreciation of the fact that petitioner was discharged during trial on account of non-examination of the prosecution witnesses punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on the petitioner was found excessive and set aside. The operative portion of the order dated 18.7.2004, Annexure-4, however, does not absolve the petitioner of the charge of assaulting Shubh Kant Jha. Appreciating the aforesaid aspect of the matter the competent authority passed the impugned punishment order dated 18.10.2005, Annexure-7 directing the petitioner not to receive salary for the period during which he remained under compulsory retirement and did not discharge duty. 3 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner having been acquitted in the criminal case should have been paid full salary for the suspension period. Aforesaid submission is misconceived as perusal of the judgment of the trial court dated 19.12.1995, Annexure-2 would indicate that petitioner was acquitted for failure of the prosecution to examine the witnesses in spite of repeated indulgence granted by the trial court to produce witnesses. 6. Appreciating the aforesaid aspect of the matter the Division Bench while remanding the matter under order dated 18.7.2004 had not exonerated the petitioner of the charge levelled against him in the proceeding. In this connection, it may be stated here that standard of proof in criminal case is beyond reasonable doubt but in the proceeding the delinquent is held guilty on the basis of probabilities of circumstances. 7. For the reasons aforementioned, I do no find any error in the impugned order dated 18.10.2005, Annexure-7. The writ petition is dismissed. P.K.P./Rajesh ( V. N. Sinha, J.)