STATE OF BIHAR Vs. LAKSHMI SHANKAR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Bihar has approached this court in appeal against the judgment of the division Bench of the Patna High Court by which an order of punishment inflicted upon the delinquent Government servant has been interfered with.

(2.) Be it stated that during the pendency of this appeal, a criminal prosecution has already been launched and the trial in the said case is still pending. An order of this Court was brought to our notice dated 5/02/1996 whereunder this Court thought it appropriate to keep the matter pending till the conclusion of the trial in the criminal proceeding. Though more than four years have elapsed since then, but as yet trial is not over. In that view of the matter, we do not think it appropriate to keep this appeal pending ad infinitum, particularly when a punishment in a criminal trial is based upon the principle of proving the guilt beyond reasonable doubt whereas a punishment in a disciplinary proceeding is dependent upon the principle of establishing the guilt by preponderance of probability. In this view of the matter, we see no justification for keeping this appeal pending in this Court until the trial is concluded which, we are told, is still pending before the learned Special Judge.

(3.) In the case in hand, as it appears, the departmental authority started a departmental proceeding with the idea of inflicting a major punishment and, therefore, following the procedure meant for the same. But later on that proceeding was withdrawn and a fresh proceeding was initiated with the idea of inflicting a minor punishment as provided under Rule 55-A of the Bihar Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. After the initiation of the fresh proceeding, though an explanation was called for from the delinquent, but the impugned order of punishment indicates that the disciplinary authority has not recorded a finding about the guilt of the delinquent of different charges which were levelled against him as well as the consideration of the explanation given by the delinquent to the charges levelled against. In such circumstances, the High Court was fully justified in interfering with the order of punishment on a conclusion that the disciplinary authority did not record a finding about the guilt of the delinquent nor has it recorded any reasoning for arriving at such conclusion.