BAL KISHAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner assails the order dated 03.01.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi in OA No.1936/2013. The Tribunal has dismissed the said original application by the impugned order. The petitioner had preferred the said original application to assail the disciplinary action taken against him by the respondents on the premise that on the same charge, he had been proceeded in a criminal case wherein he had been acquitted. The acquittal of the petitioner had taken place on account of the complainant not appearing as a prosecution witness to support his complaint, though he had been named as a witness in the charge-sheet. The complainant, however, appeared as a witness in the departmental inquiry held against the petitioner and supported his complaint. The petitioner relied upon Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 which reads as follows:-

(2.) The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the complainant had been cited as a witness in the criminal case, as he was named as a witness in the list of witnesses in the charge-sheet, the fact that the complainant was not examined during the trial is neither here nor there, and would not make a difference to the application of Rule 12 since it uses the word 'whether actually led or not'.

(3.) We do not find any merit in this submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. It is a well settled principle of law that the standard of proof required to establish a criminal charge is far higher than the standard of proof required to establish a charge in a departmental proceeding. In criminal proceedings, the charge has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts, whereas, in departmental proceedings, the charge has to be proved by evaluating the evidence on the principle of preponderance of probabilities.