JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner Laxman Singh in present writ petition has challenged order dated 05.07.1989 by which he was awarded penalty of stoppage of three grade increments with cumulative effect and the order dated 05.04.1995 by which his appeal filed against that order, was dismissed. 2. Petitioner was working as Lower Division Clerk (for short, 'LDC') in the office of Collector (Land Records), Kota. A criminal case was registered against him for offence under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC'), bearing FIR No.124/1985 at police station Nayapura, Kota. Petitioner was arrested by police on 30.04.1985. It was therefore that he was placed under suspension vide order dated 02.05.1985 with effect from 30.04.1985 itself. Subsequently, however, he was enlarged on bail. In criminal trial however petitioner was acquitted of those charges by the learned District Judge, Kota vide his judgment dated 03.06.1986. Petitioner thereafter applied for grant of privilege leave for a period of 30 days with effect from 22.04.1985 to 21.05.1985 and said period of absence of petitioner was regularised. According to petitioner, this leave was sanctioned to him by the Collector (Land Records), Kota. However, respondents contend that leave was applied for visiting tourist places on the eve of youth year, but, after sanction of leave, the petitioner in fact never proceeded on leave rather he eloped with a minor girl Miss Ranjana Sharma to village Tathed, who was daughter of his neighbour and when this fact came to the knowledge of respondents, leave was cancelled and petitioner was asked to immediately report on duty. 3. A charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, 'CCA Rules') was served on petitioner on 06.08.1985 primarily on the charge that he got the leave sanctioned on pretext of going to certain tourist places on the eve of youth year but instead, he went to village Tathed. He thereby misled the authorities and left the Headquarters without permission. He, therefore, deceived the authorities by leaving the Headquarters without permission. Another charge against him was that Shri Krishna Gopal Joshi had filed a criminal case against him for abducting his minor daughter and FIR under Sections 363 and 366 IPC was registered against him in which he was arrested on 30.04.1985 at 5.00 PM. He, therefore, deceived the authorities by leaving the Headquarters without permission. Another charge against him was that Shri Krishna Gopal Joshi had filed a criminal case against him for abducting his minor daughter and FIR under Sections 363 and 366 IPC was registered against him in which he was arrested on 30.04.1985 at 5.00 PM. His conduct, being wholly immoral and unbecoming of a Government servant, was a serious misconduct. 4. Petitioner filed reply to charge-sheet denying the charges. On 09.03.1985 however another charge-sheet was served upon him by which the disciplinary authority amended the charge No.3 stating therein that he was a married person having one child and he eloped with one Ranjana Sharma, and it was a serious misconduct on his part. To this charge-sheet, petitioner also submitted reply on 12.09.1985. 5. Statement of Miss. Ranjana Sharma was recorded in the Court under Section 164 Cr.P.C., where she stated that she left her house at her own and was not abducted nor any rape was committed upon her. During pendency of disciplinary proceedings, suspension of petitioner was revoked by order dated 04.11.1985 and he was reinstated in service. 6. The enquiry officer ultimately submitted his report and therein although he did not find Charge nos.1 and 2 proved but concluded that charge no.3 against petitioner was fully proved. The disciplinary authority agreeing with the report of the enquiry officer, passed an order on 05.07.1989 awarding penalty of stoppage of three grade increments with cumulative effective. Aggrieved thereby, an appeal was filed by petitioner which was also dismissed by Divisional Commissioner vide order dated 05.04.1995. Hence this writ petition. 7. Shri Bhanwar Bagri, learned counsel for petitioner, has argued that enquiry officer conducted the enquiry proceedings in gross violation of principles of natural justice. The application of petitioner for allowing him to engage Shri Ram Swaroop Saxena as his defence nominee was not accepted despite consent of Shri Saxena given in writing. There was no presenting officer appointed on behalf of department and rather the enquiry officer himself acted as presenting officer. The enquiry officer thus played the role of prosecutor and did not remain fair and impartial. Enquiry proceedings were therefore vitiated on this ground. There was no presenting officer appointed on behalf of department and rather the enquiry officer himself acted as presenting officer. The enquiry officer thus played the role of prosecutor and did not remain fair and impartial. Enquiry proceedings were therefore vitiated on this ground. The petitioner submitted an application before the disciplinary authority on 02.04.1987 that the enquiry officer is biased against him and that enquiry be transferred to some another officer but no action was taken on such request. There was no question of forfeiting part of salary of petitioner during suspension period. No opportunity was given to him before passing final order under Rule 54 of the Rajasthan Service Rules. Thus by the impugned order in fact two penalties have been imposed whereas according to Rule 14 of the CCA Rules only one of the penalties should have been imposed on delinquent. The sole charge found proved against petitioner that he eloped with Miss Ranjana Sharma and by that performed bigamy despite his being married. But, in the criminal trial petitioner was acquitted of that charge. Learned disciplinary authority and appellate authority have acted wholly illegally in holding petitioner guilty of such a bogus charge. It is submitted that there was no violation of any of the Rules. 8. The learned counsel submitted that once on same set of charges a delinquent has been acquitted by criminal court, he could not be penalised in disciplinary proceedings on the same charges. The learned counsel heavily relied on statement of prosecutrix Miss Ranjana Sharma recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the trial court. Learned counsel for petitioner, in support of his argument, relied on judgments of the Supreme Court in G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat, (2006) SCC (L&S) 1121 , Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines, AIR 1999 SC 1416 , and Ministry of Finance v. S.B. Ramesh, AIR 1998 SC 853 . 9. Shri S. Zakawat Ali, learned Deputy Government Counsel, opposed writ petition and submitted that charge against petitioner in criminal trial was that of abduction of a minor girl and offence that attracted thereby was under Sections 363 and 366 IPC. 9. Shri S. Zakawat Ali, learned Deputy Government Counsel, opposed writ petition and submitted that charge against petitioner in criminal trial was that of abduction of a minor girl and offence that attracted thereby was under Sections 363 and 366 IPC. However, there was altogether different charge which has been found proved against petitioner in disciplinary proceedings and this charge is to the effect that after getting the leave sanctioned on another pretext, petitioner eloped with Miss Ranjana Sharma D/o Shri Krishna Gopal Joshi, taking her from outside his College to village Tathed and that it was unbecoming of a Government servant to make relationship with another woman while he was married and was a serious misconduct. Father of the girl had also lodged criminal case against petitioner in Police Station in which he was arrested. It was all the more serious because petitioner was already married and was father of a daughter. Learned counsel submitted that judgments of the Supreme Court on which reliance is placed by learned counsel for petitioner would be wholly inapplicable to the facts of present case because all those judgments were rendered in a fact situation where charges in departmental enquiry as also in criminal proceedings were based on same set of material, evidence and witnesses. In the departmental proceedings herein the father of Miss. Ranjana Sharma has clearly stated in his statement before the court and that of Miss. Ranjana Sharma, was because he compromised the matter with petitioner in criminal trial as he did not want to produce his daughter in the court for for the fear of Society and it was because of her engagement was going to be finalised with some one else, and considering the fact that the petitioner had tendered apology and beg to be pardoned for his misconduct and on that basis father of the girl had pardoned him. But then learned counsel submitted that petitioner was acquitted in criminal trial by giving him benefit of doubt which however would not prove the fact that incident did not at all take place. In any case, charge against petitioner in disciplinary proceedings was entirely different and that was regarding violation of the Rules of 1971 by having a relationship with another woman while being married. This charge was fully proved against petitioner. In any case, charge against petitioner in disciplinary proceedings was entirely different and that was regarding violation of the Rules of 1971 by having a relationship with another woman while being married. This charge was fully proved against petitioner. It was denied that presenting officer was not appointed in the enquiry or that the enquiry officer himself examined the witnesses. It was also denied that on petitioner's request, he was not provided with defence nominee. No such request was made. The petitioner was given full opportunity to defend himself and in fact he produced Shri Surendra Singh, Krishna Kant Vijay and Babulal Gupta as witnesses on his behalf. The fact about representation of presenting officer on behalf of department is clearly noted in the enquiry report. Department has also produced Shri Nand Behari, Sadar Kanoongo and Nemi Chand Jain and Shri Krishna Kant Joshi, in support of its case. 10. Learned counsel submitted that there was no necessity of giving separate notice or any opportunity of hearing while passing final order under Rule 54, which order has to be passed along-with penalty order. Merely because the girl Miss. Ranjana Sharma, in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., did not support the case of prosecution would not mean that petitioner could not be held guilty and penalised in the departmental enquiry on finding the charge proved herein. 11. Shri Bhanwar Bagri, learned counsel for petitioner, has argued that when petitioner has been acquitted of the charge in criminal trial, where standard of proof required is of high degree i.e. beyond reasonable doubt, the charge against petitioner in departmental enquiry cannot be taken to have been proved where the degree of proof is of much lesser namely by preponderance of evidence. Learned counsel in support of his argument relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radha Krishnan, AIR 1964 SC 477 , and Union of India v. H.C. Goel, AIR 1964 SC 364 . 12. I have given my anxious consideration to rival submissions and perused the material on record. 13. Much emphasis has been led by learned counsel for petitioner on the argument that once petitioner was acquitted in criminal trial on same charges, he could not be held guilty and penalised for those very charges in the disciplinary proceedings. 12. I have given my anxious consideration to rival submissions and perused the material on record. 13. Much emphasis has been led by learned counsel for petitioner on the argument that once petitioner was acquitted in criminal trial on same charges, he could not be held guilty and penalised for those very charges in the disciplinary proceedings. In G.M. Tank's case (supra) the Supreme Court found that both, the departmental enquiry and criminal proceedings, were based on same set of charges, evidence and witnesses, and there was no other evidence against the delinquent to hold him guilty. Since he was honorably acquitted in criminal trial, during pendency of proceedings challenging dismissal. In those facts it was held that finding to the contrary quoted in the departmental proceedings would be unjust and unfair. 14. In Capt. M. Paul Anthony's case (supra) also the position was same, wherein also criminal trial and departmental proceedings were based on identical set of facts and evidence. In both proceedings the charge, evidence and witnesses were common and delinquent was acquitted in criminal case. In those facts the order of dismissal already passed before decision of criminal case was held liable to be set aside. 15. In Ministry of Finance v. S.B. Ramesh , (supra) the charge against an employee who was married, of living with another woman was not found to be proved since there was total dearth of evidence to bring home the charge and departmental enquiry was held to be totally unsatisfactory without observing minimum requirement of proving charge. Such is not the fact situation herein. 16. Such is not the position in present case. It cannot be said that charge against petitioner was common both in the departmental enquiry and criminal trial. The charge against petitioner in criminal trial was for offence under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC but charge No.3 which has been found proved against petitioner in the departmental enquiry is that being a married Government servant and father of a child, the delinquent eloped with a girl thereby committed a serious misconduct which was highly unbecoming of a Government servant. 17. 17. I am also not inclined to uphold the contention that since the petitioner has been acquitted of the charges in criminal trial where degree of standard of proof is higher than in disciplinary proceedings, therefore, on that basis alone he should be liable to be exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings too. Although this is well settled proposition of law that if charges in a criminal trial and disciplinary proceedings are based on same set of facts, evidence and witnesses, acquittal in criminal trial may be a reason to exonerate a delinquent in a disciplinary proceedings, but here in the present case the charges in both the proceedings are materially different and when evidence recorded in disciplinary proceedings is entirely different in its quality and content, such law cannot be applied blindfolded. On the contrary, in the present case where lesser degree of proof was required for the charge in question that the action of the petitioner in eloping with a girl despite being married and father of a child was highly unbecoming of Government servant and was a serious misconduct. This charge has been independently proved because apart from father of the girl, the other witnesses produced by department also in their statements proved this charge against petitioner. 18. The Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police, New Delhi v. Narender Singh, (2006) 4 SCC 265 , held that if an employee has been acquitted of a criminal charge, the same by itself could not be a ground not to initiate a departmental proceeding against him or to drop the same if it has already been initiated. 19. Coming now to the penalty which has been awarded, I find that delinquency of petitioner was not of a permanent bigamy and he temporarily eloped with a minor girl. This act of petitioner may of-course was a misconduct rendering him unbecoming of a Government servant and such conduct on the part of Government servant cannot be approved of. Award of penalty of stoppage of three grade increments with cumulative effect however on the proven charge cannot be justified. This penalty deserves to be suitably reduced to penalty of stoppage of only one grade increment. 20. In the result, this writ petition is partly allowed. The penalty awarded to the petitioner of stoppage of three grade increments with cumulative effect is modified with penalty of stoppage of one grade increments with cumulative effect. This penalty deserves to be suitably reduced to penalty of stoppage of only one grade increment. 20. In the result, this writ petition is partly allowed. The penalty awarded to the petitioner of stoppage of three grade increments with cumulative effect is modified with penalty of stoppage of one grade increments with cumulative effect. 21. There shall be no order as to costs. *******