SATBIR SINGH Vs. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, FATHEHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was working on the post of Chowkidar in the Civil Court, Tohana was found fighting in public under the influence of liquor and accordingly, a criminal case under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code was registered against him in the year 2003 in Police Station, City Fatehabad i. e his place of posting at that point of time. Apart from the criminal proceedings having been initiated, departmental proceedings were also commenced in terms of issuance of a charge sheet dated 1.10.2003 under Rule 7 of the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1987. The petitioner submitted a reply and the District & Sessions Judge, Hisar finding the same to be unsatisfactory directed a regular departmental inquiry and the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Fatehabad was appointed as the Inquiry Officer. In pursuance to the inquiry proceedings having been conducted the inquiry report dated 3.6.2004 was submitted in which findings were returned against the present petitioner and the charges were held to be proved. The District & Sessions Judge, Hisar being in agreement with the findings of the Inquiry Officer issued a show cause notice dated 18.6.2004 along with a copy of the inquiry report, wherein the penalty of dismissal was proposed. The petitioner even submitted a reply to such show cause notice. An opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner. On consideration of the reply submitted vide order dated 31.5.2006 the District & Sessions Judge, Fatehabad imposed upon the petitioner the major penalty of dismissal from service. There is no dispute as regards the fact that even a service appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the High Court on the administrative side with a direction that the petitioner would be deemed to have been terminated from service instead of dismissal. Such order in the service appeal was passed on 1.11.2006. Against such order the petitioner preferred CWP No. 3749 of 2007 and a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the petition vide order dated 13.3.2007. Even an S. L. P (Civil) No. 7040 of 2009 preferred by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Apex Court was dismissed on 10.12.2010.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that he has been acquitted by the competent court in the criminal proceedings launched against him in respect to the same charge vide judgement dated 15.11.2011 and as such a fresh cause of action has accrued to the petitioner. The precise argument raised by learned counsel is that since he has been acquitted by the criminal court, the impugned order of dismissal from service deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) I find myself unable to accept the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. Criminal and departmental proceedings operate in different fields. In criminal proceedings the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand in a departmental inquiry a penalty can be imposed upon an employee on the basis of the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer on the basis of preponderance of probability. Undoubtedly, the order of dismissal from service passed against the petitioner which was thereafter modified to an order of termination in a service appeal was passed in pursuance to a regular departmental inquiry. Acquittal of the present petitioner in criminal proceedings would not automatically absolve him from the liability fastened upon him under the disciplinary jurisdiction vested with the department.