PALA RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was terminated in the year 1998 for the allegation that he had not issued two tickets to the passengers travelling from Karnal to Sambli and had accepted the fare. Second allegation was that he had not given tickets to eight passengers travelling from Karnal to Kachwa and had accepted money, i.e., `3/- each totalling `24/-. Thus, the petitioner was accused of embezzling a sum of `34/- from the passengers travelling in the area. The petitioner was proceeded against on these charges and after holding an enquiry, the services of the petitioner were terminated on 10.3.1998. Simultaneously, an FIR was also registered against the petitioner on 20.8.1996 under Section 409 IPC at Police Station City, Karnal based on the same set of allegations alleging embezzlement on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner, after trial, was acquitted of the allegations on 9.8.2004. He thereafter had approached the respondents on 20.2.2005 with a detailed representation for reinstating him into service. Now after another lapse of five years, he has filed this writ petition to impugn his termination, which was ordered in the year 1998.

(2.) THERE is no explanation on the part of the petitioner for delay on his part in making the present approach. The cause of action arose in the year 1998, but no challenge was made to the termination order. Another cause may have arisen for the petitioner in the year 2004. Still, the petitioner has made the present approach in the year 2010. Even otherwise, the acquittal of the petitioner, which is eight years after the order of termination, would not have any affect on the termination, which was based on the enquiry proceedings and the evidence led before the enquiry. Reference here may be made to the case of South Bengal State Transport Corpn. Vs. Swapan Kumar Mitra and others, J.T. 2006(2) 307, where it is observed that acquittal in criminal proceedings does not in itself make the departmental proceedings not maintainable. Nature and scope of proof in criminal case varies from that of a departmental disciplinary proceedings, whereas criminal charge has to be proved by proof beyond reasonable doubt while in the departmental proceedings, the standard of proof is by mere preponderance of probabilities and the order of punishment still can be passed.

(3.) THERE is no merit in the writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.