STATE OF RAJASTHAN; DY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTA; SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, JHALAWAR Vs. JAMNA LAL MEENA S/O HEERA LAL MEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal arises from order dated 06.02.2014 allowing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6501/1998 directing reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service but denying pecuniary benefit for the intervening period along with notional reassessment of salary.

(2.) Learned counsel for the State submitted that the respondent was assigned duty during the Panchayat elections. He was negligent in handling his official firearm and despite being told not to load it while sitting, proceeded to do so leading to accidental firing which injured three persons.

(3.) There was no procedural illegality or irregularity in the conduct of the departmental proceedings. The Appellate Authority also declined to interfere with the order of dismissal. The learned Single Judge erred in directing reinstatement only on the ground that in the criminal prosecution instituted under Section 308 IPC for injury caused to three persons because of his conduct, the charge could not be proved. The standard of proof required in a departmental proceeding and in a criminal trial are entirely different and purpose of the two are also different. While departmental proceedings are conducted to enforce discipline in service and punishment can be based on preponderance of probabilities, in a criminal trial conviction and imprisonment may follow for a penal offence and the standard of proof is beyond all reasonable doubts. In the present case more than one prosecution witness in the departmental proceeding had deposed that the respondent despite being told not to load his weapon insisted on doing so when it accidentally fired. If a finding of negligence had been recorded and there was even an iota of evidence with regard to the same, the Learned Single Judge ought not to have directed reinstatement or interfered with the punishment.