BALU SINGH VS. RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS. (D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(W) NO.178/2000) 1 BALU SINGH VS. RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS. (D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(W) NO.178/2000) Date of Judgment: 5.3.2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr. S.K.M.Vyas, for the appellant. Mr. Ravi Bhansali, for the respondents. BY THE COURT:(PER HON'BLE MR.SANGEET LODHA,J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This special appeal is directed against order dated 13.12.99 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant assailing the validity of the charge sheet dated 24.2.98 issued by Secretary, Rajasthan State Electricity Board,Jaipur( in short “RSEB” hereinafter), has been dismissed. 3. The appellant is employed as Vehicle Driver with the respondents. On 21.5.83 a vehicle i.e. Jeep driven by the appellant met with an accident which resulted in death of one Shri Madanlal. The appellant was prosecuted for commission of offence u/s 279, 304 A of India Penal Code before the court of competent jurisdiction. He was convicted by the trial court however, on appeal,he was acquitted of the charges by the appellate court. On a claim petition being preferred by dependents of deceased Shri Madanlal, an award for BALU SINGH VS. RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS. (D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(W) NO.178/2000) 2 compensation quantified at Rs. 77,720/- was passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ( in short “MACT” hereinafter) against the respondents. Since the vehicle was not insured therefore, the respondent had to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants. After passing of the award by the MACT, the respondents initiated a disciplinary proceedings against the appellant and then Assistant Engineer Shri B.M.C.Mathur and accordingly, served the appellant with the charge sheet dated 26.7.94. From the record, it appears that the charge sheet was issued to then Assistant Engineer Shri B.M.C. Mathur as well inasmuch as he was responsible for lapses relating non timely insurance of vehicle involved in the accident, on account of which the Board had to bear a loss of Rs.77,720/- as compensation. However, the charge sheet issued to the appellant and Shri B.M.C. Mathur was later withdrawn and a fresh charge sheet was issued on 24.2.98 by the Secretary, RSEB, Jaipur. 4. The validity of the charge sheet was assailed by the appellant inter alia on the ground that the charge sheet issued after a lapse of about 15 years since the date of alleged accident is illegal and arbitrary. That apart, it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the first charge sheet was issued on the same facts and grounds relating to the alleged accident and after BALU SINGH VS. RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS. (D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(W) NO.178/2000) 3 recording the statement of the appellant there was no justification in closing the enquiry so as to initiate a fresh enquiry. It was further contended that the appellant has already been acquitted by the criminal court of competent jurisdiction therefore, no charge sheet can be issued on the basis of his alleged negligence on the part of appellant in driving the vehicle. 5. The writ petition assailing the validity of the charge sheet has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the order impugned in limine holding that a man can be guilty of misconduct though he may not be punished for a particular offence. Precisely, the learned Single Judge has declined to interfere in the matter on the ground that notwithstanding acquittal in a criminal case , disciplinary proceedings can be initiated by the employer against a delinquent employee . 6. In this special preferred by the appellant aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, while issuing notices the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant was stayed by this court vide order dated 11.4.2000. Thereafter, the writ petition was admitted on 19.7.2000. 7. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein there is no explanation as to why the disciplinary proceedings for the alleged accident on account of negligence of the appellant was initiated belatedly in the year BALU SINGH VS. RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS. (D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(W) NO.178/2000) 4 1994. It is submitted that the award was passed by the MACT on 17.2.93 and thereafter, without wasting the time charge sheet was issued. It is further submitted that vide order dated 1.1.98 the enquiry initiated against the appellant was not dropped but only charge sheet was withdrawn and a fresh charge sheet was issued without further loss of time on 24.2.98. According to the respondents the proceedings in a criminal trial and the departmental proceedings are entirely different and do not have implication over each other and even after acquittal in a criminal case if charges of misconduct is found proved in disciplinary proceedings then the delinquent employee can be held liable. By way of an additional affidavit, the respondents have given the justification for issuance of the fresh charge sheet. It is submitted that the charge sheet was initially issued by the Executive Engineer(Civil-O&M) RSEB,Jodhpur whereas according to the order dated 17.8.76 the Superintending Engineer was the competent authority to initiate disciplinary action against the appellant holding Skilled-B Category Post therefore, earlier charge sheet was withdrawn and fresh charge sheet was issued. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated the contentions raised by him in the writ petition and the counsel for the respondents has raised the contention set out in the reply to the writ petition as noticed above. BALU SINGH VS. RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS. (D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(W) NO.178/2000) 5 9. It is true that the standard of proof in a departmental enquiry is not the same as in criminal case. In the criminal case there is requirement of strict proof whereas in a departmental proceedings a delinquent employee can be held guilty of the charges even on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, the acquittal in a criminal case by itself cannot be a ground for quashing the departmental proceedings. But in the instant case it is to be noticed that for an incident occurred in the year 1983 no disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the appellant for about 11 years. It appears that the respondent had no intention to initiate the proceedings against the appellant for his alleged negligence in driving but since an award was passed by the MACT in favour of the dependents of the deceased Madanlal and liability to pay compensation having been fallen on the respondents on account of non-insurance of the vehicle, the disciplinary proceedings was initiated inter alia against the appellant. This fact stands fortified from Annexure 2 dated 26.7.94 , a report submitted by the Executive Engineer(Civil-O & M) RSEB ,Jodhpur wherein it has been categorically noticed that the Board has to bear the loss of compensation inasmuch as the vehicle was not timely insured on account of the lapse on the part of then Assistant Engineer Shri B.M.C. Mathur . On being pointedly asked by the court as to the fate of the disciplinary BALU SINGH VS. RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS. (D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(W) NO.178/2000) 6 proceedings initiated against the Assistant Engineer Shri B.M.C. Mathur the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that he was not found at fault and some other officer was at fault in not getting the vehicle insured timely. On being asked by the court as to what prevented the respondents from initiating the proceedings immediately after the alleged accident, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents had no answer . 10. It goes without saying that initiation of the departmental proceedings after an inordinate delay affects the delinquent employee prejudicially. For the mistake committed by the respondents in initiating the disciplinary proceedings with the utmost expedition the appellant cannot be made to suffer. On the facts and in the circumstances noticed above, the explanation put forward by the respondents for the delay in initiation of the disciplinary action is not plausible and acceptable. From the material on record, it is apparent that the disciplinary proceedings has been initiated against the appellant after passing of the award by the MACT solely for the reason that the liability for compensation fell upon the respondents on account of failure on the part of the officer concerned to get the vehicle insured timely. Thus, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, in our view it will be against BALU SINGH VS. RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS. (D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(W) NO.178/2000) 7 the interest of justice to permit the respondent to proceed with the inquiry against the appellant after a lapse of about more than 25 years since the date of alleged incident. 11. In the result, the special appeal succeeds, it is hereby allowed. The order impugned is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned charge sheet dated 24.2.98 issued by the Secretary, RSEB ,Jaipur is quashed. No order as to costs. (SANGEET LODHA),J. (A.M.KAPADIA),J. Aditya/-