STATE OF MANIPUR Vs. V. KAMA PAITE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 16.4.2008 in W.P.(C) No. 93 of 2003. The respondent was the petitioner in the said writ application. The facts leading to the filing of the present litigation are as follows:

(2.) The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. &Anr., 1999 AIR(SC) 1416 as well as in the case of G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat, 2006 5 SCC 446 and held that the charges in both the departmental proceedings and criminal case being the same, same set of witnesses having been examined in both the proceedings, the respondent having been acquitted of the criminal charge cannot be found guilty of the charge framed in the departmental proceeding. With the above finding the learned Single Judge allowed the writ application setting aside the impugned order of dismissal from service as well as the order of the appellate authority. However, by the time the writ application was disposed of, the respondent had already attained the age of superannuation and therefore the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment only directed for payment of pension in accordance with the Pension Rules for the period of service rendered by the respondent till his dismissal.

(3.) Challenging the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, Mr. H. Raghumani, learned G.A. representing the appellants made the following submissions-(i) acquittal in the criminal case has no bearing with the departmental proceeding considering the fact that the standard of proof in both the proceedings are different than each other. In a criminal case the charge is required to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt whereas in a departmental proceeding only preponderance of probability is to be seen and standard of proof in a departmental proceeding not being as that of the criminal case, merely because the respondent was acquitted in the criminal case, the learned Single Judge could not have set aside the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority in pursuance of a departmental proceeding; (ii) the order of dismissal from service was passed on 17.11.1988 whereas the departmental appeal was filed before the Dy. I.G. of Police in the year, 2002. This long delay of 14 years in filing the departmental appeal was not also considered by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition.