Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 159 (JHR)

Bhim Singh v. Union of India

2014-01-24

D.N.PATEL, P.P.BHATT

body2014
Judgment D.N. Patel, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in a Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7878 of 2012 dated 9.7.2013 whereby the writ petition preferred by this appellant has been dismissed. 2. Brief Facts of the case are as under : The appellant is a member of Central Industrial Security Force. He was assigned duty of petrolling from 08.00 hours on 27.10.1995 at CISF Contingent, ECW Bhojudih. During surprise checking, at about 14.30 hours, it was found that in his presence, in his duty area, trucks were engaged for loading coal unauthorizedly from freshly generated sink dumps. There is a charge levelled against this appellant by the Union of India in a charge sheet which is dated 4.5.1996 that conduct of this appellant tantamounts to misconduct, negligence and dereliction of duty being a member of Armed Force. This appellant had given a reply. Departmental proceeding was conducted and inquiry report was submitted and Disciplinary Authority passed an order of Compulsorily Retirement dated 26th May, 1997. Against which, the appeal was preferred by this appellant before Departmental Appellate Authority and the said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 11th February, 1998. Against this order, this appellant had preferred a Revision application before the Departmental Revisional Authority. This revision application has also been dismissed by the Departmental Revisional Authority vide order dated 19th March, 2002. Against this consistent findings of fact, this appellant preferred W.P(S) No. 7878 of 2012, which was heard at length and dismissed on merit by a detailed speaking order dated 9.7.2013 by the learned Single Judge. Against which, the present LPA has been preferred by the original petitioner. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for appellant that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that for the charges levelled against this appellant on criminal side, there is acquittal and for the same charges no departmental proceeding can be initiated. It is further submitted that this appellant has already been acquitted from the criminal charges by the competent criminal trial court and hence conclusion arrived at in the departmental proceeding deserves to be quashed/ set aside. It is further submitted that this appellant has already been acquitted from the criminal charges by the competent criminal trial court and hence conclusion arrived at in the departmental proceeding deserves to be quashed/ set aside. The Respondent Union of India could not establish the charges levelled against this appellant and this aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge, and hence the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in a Writ petition (Civil) No. 7878 of 2012 deserves to be quashed/set aside. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no dereliction of duty on the part of this appellant and he was in service since last 26 years and not a single occasion, any charge sheet has been submitted nor any misconduct is ever been committed by this appellant, and therefore also, the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in a writ petition No. 7878 of 2012 deserves to be quashed/ set aside. 4. We have heard the Central Government Counsel Mr. Fiazur Rehman, who has vehemently submitted that there is no statutory bar that once a person is acquitted from the criminal charges, no department proceeding can be initiated because in a criminal court, offence is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt whereas in the departmental proceeding, the charges can be proved at a preponderance of probability or possibility. Apart from this aspect of the matter, there is a vast difference between criminal charges and departmental charges against this appellant. On a criminal side there were charges under Section 379 Punishment for theft, 420 Cheating and dishonestly inducing the delivery of property, 120B Punishment of criminal conspiracy to be read with Section 34 Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. These were the charges on a criminal side and in the criminal matter, several prosecution witnesses were not examined and seizure list witnesses had turned hostile. As this appellant had served for about 26 years, the benefit of doubt was granted whereas on civil side in departmental proceeding against this appellant, there were charges against this appellant to the effect that he was a member of the Armed Force and while petrolling duty in his area and in his presence, the trucks were engaged in loading of coal unauthorizedly. This fact of the appellant tantamounts to gross misconduct, negligence and dereliction of duty being a member of the Armed Force. This aspect of the matter has been correctly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and on the basis of evidence on record during departmental proceeding a detailed inquiry report has been submitted to the disciplinary authority and this appellant has been punished liberally for Compulsorily Retirement otherwise, he should have been dismissed from the service, but, only leniency has been shown by the Union of India keeping in mind the 26 years' service of this appellant so that he can get his retirement benefits. Had he been dismissed, perhaps he would not have got any retirement benefits. The decision of the Disciplinary Authority was challenged by way of filing the appeal and the departmental appeal has also been dismissed, against which revision application was preferred by this appellant, which was also dismissed. The learned counsel appearing for the Union of India has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat and ors., as reported in (2006)5 SCC 446 . It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Union of India that there is no error committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition preferred by this appellant. Hence this appeal may not be entertained by this Court. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and judicial pronouncements, we see no reason to entertain this appeal mainly for the following reasons, facts and circumstances :- (i) it appears that this appellant is member of Central Industrial Security Force and he was assigned the petrolling duty at CISF Contingent ECW, Bhojudih, in the State of Jharkhand, on 27.10.1995 and in his duty hours from 8 hours onwards, during the surprise checking, at 14:30 hours, it was found that in his presence, in his duty area, several trucks were engaged for loading coal unauthorizedly from the freshly generated sink dump. This appellant namely Bhim Singh failed to resist the unauthorized loading of the coal. This fact, as per the charge sheet, submitted upon him, tantamounts to gross misconduct, negligence, and dereliction of duty being a member of the Armed Force. This charge was levelled against this appellant. This appellant namely Bhim Singh failed to resist the unauthorized loading of the coal. This fact, as per the charge sheet, submitted upon him, tantamounts to gross misconduct, negligence, and dereliction of duty being a member of the Armed Force. This charge was levelled against this appellant. On 4.5.1996, the reply was given by this appellant and on the basis of evidence on record, inquiry was conducted and on the basis of the evidence on record, detailed inquiry report was submitted to the disciplinary authority, who passed an order of compulsory retirement of this appellant, against which, the appeal was preferred by the delinquent, which was also dismissed by the departmental appellate authority vide order dated 11th February, 1998, against which, this appellant preferred revision application before the revisional authority, which was also dismissed vide order dated 19.3.2002. Thus, against this consistent findings of fact, this appellant had preferred the writ petition, bearing Writ Petition (S) No.7878 of 2012, which was also dismissed vide order dated 9.7.2013, against which, this Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred. (ii) Thus, it appears that in presence of this appellant, being a member of the C.I.S.F., whose main duty was petrolling, unauthorized loading of the coal should have been prevented by him forthwith. During surprise checking, this appellant was caught. There are enough evidences looking to the Inquiry Officer's findings of fact. Several witnesses have been examined and there is no procedural lapses on the part of the respondent in conducting the departmental proceeding. Adequate opportunity of being heard was also given to this appellant. Even this appellant has also been cross examined the witnesses of the management. There is no procedural lacuna in holding the departmental proceeding. This Court is not sitting in appeal against the departmental proceeding. We have to verify whether there is any procedural lacuna or not. Looking to departmental proceeding, there is no procedural lacuna whatsoever. (iii) Once the departmental proceeding is conducted in accordance with law and if adequate opportunity of being heard is given, then next question comes for the Court is quantum of punishment. Looking to the nature of misconduct and the punishment awarded by the respondent Union of India, it cannot be said that the same is shockingly disproportionate nor the punishment is unreasonably excessive. Looking to the nature of misconduct and the punishment awarded by the respondent Union of India, it cannot be said that the same is shockingly disproportionate nor the punishment is unreasonably excessive. On the contrary, lenient view has been taken by the Union of India that keeping in mind the long service of this appellant, he has not been dismissed and only “Compulsory Retirement” punishment has been given so that this appellant can get the retirement benefits. Those, who are the protectors, cannot commit such type of misconduct. This appellant is a member of the Armed Force. He is assigned with the duty of petrolling and he has failed to perform his duties and on the contrary, in his presence, the trucks were ready for loading of the coal from the freshly generated heaps of coal. Enough evidence have been given by the management which is evident from Annexure 1, which is an order dated 26.5.1997. (iv) Thus, there is no procedural lacuna in this departmental proceeding against this appellant nor the punishment awarded to this appellant is shockingly disproportionate. On the contrary, it is commensurate with the nature of the misconduct. (v) It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that for the charges levelled against this appellant on criminal side, the departmental proceeding cannot be initiated. If both the charges are similar in nature, the departmental proceeding ought to have been stayed by the Union of India, as there is acquittal of this appellant from the criminal charges by the competent criminal trial court. This contention is also not accepted by this Court mainly for the reasons that :- (a) It is a wrong notion in the mind of this appellant that once there is acquittal from the criminal charges, no departmental proceedings can be initiated. The law is otherwise, as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions: ? In the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., as reported in (1999)3 SCC 679 , at Paragraph Nos. 13, 22 and 35, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “13. The law is otherwise, as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions: ? In the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., as reported in (1999)3 SCC 679 , at Paragraph Nos. 13, 22 and 35, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “13. As we shall presently see, there is a consensus of judicial opinion amongst the High Courts whose decisions we do not intend to refer to in this case, and the various pronouncements of this Court, which shall be copiously referred to, on the basic principle that proceedings in a criminal case and the departmental proceedings can proceed simultaneously with a little exception. As we understand, the basis for this proposition is that proceedings in a criminal case and the departmental proceedings operate in distinct and different jurisdictional areas. Whereas in the departmental proceedings, where a charge relating to misconduct is being investigated, the factors operating in the mind of the disciplinary authority may be many such as enforcement of discipline or to investigate the level of integrity of the delinquent or the other staff, the standard of proof required in those proceedings is also different than that required in a criminal case. While in the departmental proceedings the standard of proof is one of preponderance of the probabilities, in a criminal case, the charge has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The little exception may be where the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common without there being a variance. xx xx xx 22. The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are: (i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. (ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. (ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. (iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge-sheet. (iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. (v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest. xx xx xx 35. Since the facts and the evidence in both the proceedings, namely, the departmental proceedings and the criminal case were the same without there being any iota of difference, the distinction, which is usually drawn as between the departmental proceedings and the criminal case on the basis of approach and burden of proof, would not be applicable to the instant case.” (Emphasis supplied) ? In the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltc. v. Sarvesh Berry, as reported in (2005)10 SCC 471 , at Paragraph Nos. 7 and 8, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “7. It is a fairly well-settled position in law that on basic principles, proceedings in criminal case and departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously, except in some cases where departmental proceedings and criminal case are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common. It is a fairly well-settled position in law that on basic principles, proceedings in criminal case and departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously, except in some cases where departmental proceedings and criminal case are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common. It is in these cases, the court has to decide, taking into account the special features of the case, whether simultaneous continuance of both would be proper. 8. The purposes of departmental enquiry and of prosecution are two different and distinct aspects. Criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of a duty the offender owes to the society, or for breach of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. So, crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. It would, therefore, be expedient that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible. It is not, therefore, desirable to lay down any guidelines as inflexible rules in which the departmental proceedings may or may not be stayed pending trial in criminal case against the delinquent officer. Each case requires to be considered in the backdrop of its own facts and circumstances. There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental enquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the charge in the criminal trial is of a grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law. Offence generally implies infringement of public duty, as distinguished from mere private rights punishable under criminal law. When trial for criminal offence is conducted it should be in accordance with proof of the offence as per the evidence defined under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short “the Evidence Act”). Converse is the case of departmental enquiry. The enquiry in departmental proceedings relates to conduct or breach of duty of the delinquent officer to punish him for his misconduct defined under the relevant statutory rules or law. That the strict standard of proof or applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded is a settled legal position. Under these circumstances, what is required to be seen is whether the departmental enquiry would seriously prejudice the delinquent in his defence at the trial in a criminal case. That the strict standard of proof or applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded is a settled legal position. Under these circumstances, what is required to be seen is whether the departmental enquiry would seriously prejudice the delinquent in his defence at the trial in a criminal case. It is always a question of fact to be considered in each case depending on its own facts and circumstances.” (Emphasis supplied) ? In the case of Commr. of Police v. Narender Singh, as reported in (2006)4 SCC 265 , at Paragraph No. 13, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “13. It is now well settled by reason of a catena of decisions of this Court that if an employee has been acquitted of a criminal charge, the same by itself would not be a ground not to initiate a departmental proceeding against him or to drop the same in the event an order of acquittal is passed.” (Emphasis supplied) ? In the case of Suresh Pathrella v. Oriental Bank of Commerce, as reported in (2006)10 SCC 572 , at Paragraph No. 11, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “11. In our view, the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are fallacious. This Court has taken the view consistently that acquittal in a criminal case would be no bar for drawing up a disciplinary proceeding against the delinquent officer. It is well-settled principle of law that the yardstick and standard of proof in a criminal case is different from the disciplinary proceeding. While the standard of proof in a criminal case is a proof beyond all reasonable doubt, the proof in a departmental proceeding is preponderance of probabilities.” (Emphasis supplied) ? In the case of Karnataka SRTC v. M.G. Vittal Rao, as reported in (2012)1 SCC 442 , at Paragraph Nos. 11 to 16, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: 11. The question of considering reinstatement after decision of acquittal or discharge by a competent criminal court arises only and only if the dismissal from services was based on conviction by the criminal court in view of the provisions of Article 311(2)(b) [sic Article 311(2) second proviso (a)]* of the Constitution of India, or analogous provisions in the statutory rules applicable in a case. In a case where enquiry has been held independently of the criminal proceedings, acquittal in a criminal court is of no help. The law is otherwise. Even if a person stood acquitted by a criminal court, domestic enquiry can be held, the reason being that the standard of proof required in a domestic enquiry and that in a criminal case are altogether different. In a criminal case, standard of proof required is beyond reasonable doubt while in a domestic enquiry it is the preponderance of probabilities that constitutes the test to be applied. 12. In Nelson Motis v. Union of India this Court held: (SCC p. 714, para 5) “5. … The nature and scope of a criminal case are very different from those of a departmental disciplinary proceeding and an order of acquittal, therefore, cannot conclude the departmental proceeding.” 13. In State of Karnataka v. T. Venkataramanappa, this Court held that acquittal in a criminal case cannot be held to be a bar to hold departmental enquiry for the same misconduct for the reason that in a criminal trial, standard of proof is different as the case is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt but in the departmental proceeding, such a strict proof of misconduct is not required. 14. In State of A.P. v. K. Allabakash, while dismissing the appeal against acquittal by the High Court, this Court observed as under: (SCC p. 177, para 2) “2. …that acquittal of the respondent shall not be construed as a clear exoneration of the respondent, for the allegations call for departmental proceedings, if not already initiated, against him.” 15. While dealing with a similar issue, a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Ajit Kumar Nag v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., held as under: (SCC p. 776, para 11) “11. … In our judgment, the law is fairly well settled. Acquittal by a criminal court would not debar an employer from exercising power in accordance with the Rules and Regulations in force. The two proceedings, criminal and departmental, are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on the offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with the service rules. The two proceedings, criminal and departmental, are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on the offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with the service rules. In a criminal trial, incriminating statement made by the accused in certain circumstances or before certain officers is totally inadmissible in evidence. Such strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental proceedings. The degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency. The rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, he cannot be convicted by a court of law. In a departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of ‘preponderance of probability’.” 16. The issue as to whether disciplinary proceedings can be held at the time when the delinquent employee is facing the criminal trial, has also been considered from time to time. In State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena this Court while dealing with the issue observed as under: (SCC pp. 422-23, para 14) “14. It would be evident from the above decisions that each of them starts with the indisputable proposition that there is no legal bar for both proceedings to go on simultaneously and then say that in certain situations, it may not be ‘desirable’, ‘advisable’ or ‘appropriate’ to proceed with the disciplinary enquiry when a criminal case is pending on identical charges. … The only ground suggested in the above decisions as constituting a valid ground for staying the disciplinary proceedings is that ‘the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced’. This ground has, however, been hedged in by providing further that this may be done in cases of grave nature involving questions of fact and law. In our respectful opinion, it means that not only the charges must be grave but that the case must involve complicated questions of law and fact. This ground has, however, been hedged in by providing further that this may be done in cases of grave nature involving questions of fact and law. In our respectful opinion, it means that not only the charges must be grave but that the case must involve complicated questions of law and fact. Moreover, ‘advisability’, ‘desirability’ or ‘propriety’, as the case may be, has to be determined in each case taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case. … One of the contending considerations is that the disciplinary enquiry cannot be—and should not be—delayed unduly. So far as criminal cases are concerned, it is well known that they drag on endlessly where high officials or persons holding high public offices are involved. They get bogged down on one or the other ground. They hardly ever reach a prompt conclusion. … If a criminal case is unduly delayed that may itself be a good ground for going ahead with the disciplinary enquiry even where the disciplinary proceedings are held over at an earlier stage. The interests of administration and good government demand that these proceedings are concluded expeditiously. It must be remembered that interests of administration demand that undesirable elements are thrown out and any charge of misdemeanour is enquired into promptly.** The disciplinary proceedings are meant not really to punish the guilty but to keep the administrative machinery unsullied by getting rid of bad elements.** The interest of the delinquent officer also lies in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. If he is not guilty of the charges, his honour should be vindicated at the earliest possible moment and if he is guilty, he should be dealt with promptly according to law. It is not also in the interest of administration that persons accused of serious misdemeanour should be continued in office indefinitely i.e. for long periods awaiting the result of criminal proceedings. It is not in the interest of administration. It only serves the interest of the guilty and dishonest.” (Emphasis supplied) ? In the case of Inspector General of Police v. Samuthiram, as reported in (2013)1 SCC 598 , at Paragraph Nos. 23 to 26, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: 23. We are of the view that the mere acquittal of an employee by a criminal court has no impact on the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Department. In the case of Inspector General of Police v. Samuthiram, as reported in (2013)1 SCC 598 , at Paragraph Nos. 23 to 26, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: 23. We are of the view that the mere acquittal of an employee by a criminal court has no impact on the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Department. The respondent, it may be noted, is a member of a disciplined force and non-examination of two key witnesses before the criminal court that is Adiyodi and Peter, in our view, was a serious flaw in the conduct of the criminal case by the prosecution. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the possibility of winning over PWs 1 and 2 in the criminal case cannot be ruled out. We fail to see, why the prosecution had not examined Head Constable Adiyodi (No. 1368) and Peter (No. 1079) of Tenkasi Police Station. It was these two Head Constables who took the respondent from the scene of occurrence along with PWs 1 and 2, husband and wife, to Tenkasi Police Station and it is in their presence that the complaint was registered. In fact, the criminal court has also opined that the signature of PW 1 (complainant husband) is found in Ext. P-1 complaint. Further, the doctor, PW 8 has also clearly stated before the enquiry officer that the respondent was under the influence of liquor and that he had refused to undergo blood and urine tests. That being the factual situation, we are of the view that the respondent was not honourably acquitted by the criminal court, but only due to the fact that PW 1 and PW 2 turned hostile and other prosecution witnesses were not examined. 24. The meaning of the expression “honourable acquittal” came up for consideration before this Court in RBI v. Bhopal Singh Panchal. In that case, this Court has considered the impact of Regulation 46(4) dealing with honourable acquittal by a criminal court on the disciplinary proceedings. In that context, this Court held that the mere acquittal does not entitle an employee to reinstatement in service, the acquittal, it was held, has to be honourable. The expressions “honourable acquittal”, “acquitted of blame”, “fully exonerated” are unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code, which are coined by judicial pronouncements. In that context, this Court held that the mere acquittal does not entitle an employee to reinstatement in service, the acquittal, it was held, has to be honourable. The expressions “honourable acquittal”, “acquitted of blame”, “fully exonerated” are unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code, which are coined by judicial pronouncements. It is difficult to define precisely what is meant by the expression “honourably acquitted”. When the accused is acquitted after full consideration of prosecution evidence and that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted. 25. In R.P. Kapur v. Union of India it was held that even in the case of acquittal, departmental proceedings may follow where the acquittal is other than honourable. In State of Assam v. Raghava Rajgopalachari this Court quoted with approval the views expressed by Lord Williams, J. in Robert Stuart Wauchope v. Emperor which is as follows: (Raghava case, SLR p. 47, para 8) “8. … ‘The expression “honourably acquitted” is one which is unknown to courts of justice. Apparently it is a form of order used in courts martial and other extrajudicial tribunals. We said in our judgment that we accepted the explanation given by the appellant, believed it to be true and considered that it ought to have been accepted by the government authorities and by the Magistrate. Further, we decided that the appellant had not misappropriated the monies referred to in the charge. It is thus clear that the effect of our judgment was that the appellant was acquitted as fully and completely as it was possible for him to be acquitted. Presumably, this is equivalent to what government authorities term “honourably acquitted”.’” (Robert Stuart case, ILR pp. 188-89) 26. As we have already indicated, in the absence of any provision in the service rules for reinstatement, if an employee is honourably acquitted by a criminal court, no right is conferred on the employee to claim any benefit including reinstatement. Reason is that the standard of proof required for holding a person guilty by a criminal court and the enquiry conducted by way of disciplinary proceeding is entirely different. Reason is that the standard of proof required for holding a person guilty by a criminal court and the enquiry conducted by way of disciplinary proceeding is entirely different. In a criminal case, the onus of establishing the guilt of the accused is on the prosecution and if it fails to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is assumed to be innocent. It is settled law that the strict burden of proof required to establish guilt in a criminal court is not required in a disciplinary proceedings and preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. There may be cases where a person is acquitted for technical reasons or the prosecution giving up other witnesses since few of the other witnesses turned hostile, etc. In the case on hand the prosecution did not take steps to examine many of the crucial witnesses on the ground that the complainant and his wife turned hostile. The court, therefore, acquitted the accused giving the benefit of doubt. We are not prepared to say that in the instant case, the respondent was honourably acquitted by the criminal court and even if it is so, he is not entitled to claim reinstatement since the Tamil Nadu Service Rules do not provide so.” (Emphasis supplied) (b) Moreover, in this case, there is a vast difference between the criminal charges levelled against this appellant and the charges levelled in the departmental proceedings. These are accurately narrated by the learned Single Judge in Paragraph No.8 of the judgment. In criminal charge against this appellant, there were charges under the I.P.C., as given below:- Section 379 Punishment for Theft. “Section 420 Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. Section 120B Punishment of Criminal Conspiracy to be read with Section 34 Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention whereas, in the departmental proceedings, the charges against this appellant, read as under :- Article of charge-I No.7002153 ASI/Exe Bhim Singh was detailed in General Shift on area patrolling duty from 08:00 hrs on 27.10.95 at CISF contingent ECW Bhojudih. During the course of surprise checking at about 14:30 hrs it was found that in his duty area, trucks were engaged for loading coal unauthorizedly, in his presence from freshly generated sink dumps as well as picking and choosing method. During the course of surprise checking at about 14:30 hrs it was found that in his duty area, trucks were engaged for loading coal unauthorizedly, in his presence from freshly generated sink dumps as well as picking and choosing method. No.7002153 ASI/Exe Bhim Singh failed to resist the unauthorized loading from freshly generated heap as well as by picking and choosing method unauthorizedly. The above act of ASI/Exe Bhim Singh amounts to gross misconduct, negligence and dereliction to duty being a member of the Armed Force”. Thus, looking to the charges on criminal side and the charges in the departmental proceedings, there is vast difference and they are not similar or the same. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge in Paragraph No.8 of the judgment in Writ Petition No.7878 of 2012 dated 9.7.2013 and we see no error in the said appreciation of the learned Single Judge. (c) Looking to the order of acquittal passed in favour of this appellant, it appears that most of the witnesses did not turn up and the witnesses, who are examined, i.e. the Seizure List witnesses, they have turned hostile. Thus, in fact, in the criminal trial, against this appellant, there was no proper evidence before the learned trial court and therefore, he was acquitted as there was no evidence. Thus, there is no honourable acquittal of this appellant from the criminal charges. The benefit of non examination of the witnesses and the hostility of the witnesses have been given to this appellant. The Investigating Officer has failed to perform his duty in the criminal case. This has resulted into the acquittal, which cannot be lebelled as an honourable of this appellant. 6. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons and judicial pronouncements and also looking to the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in deciding the Writ Petition (Civil) No.7878 of 2012. Hence, there is no substance in this L.P.A., and therefore, this L.P.A. is, hereby, dismissed.