STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. BAHADUR RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) To assail validity, correctness and propriety of the judgment dated 1.11.2007, passed by learned Single Judge, this appeal is preferred. The appeal is barred by limitation, thus, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is alsopreferred.

(2.) In brief, facts of the case are that the respondent, a Constable with Rajasthan Police was charged for an offence punishable under Sections 379 and 411 IPC. For the same allegations he was also charged for committing a misconduct as defined under Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971. The respondent accordingly faced criminal trial as well as the disciplinary proceedings under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958. The disciplinary authority dismissed the respondent from service vide an order dated 28.2.1994 and that came to be affirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 20.12.1994. A review petition preferred before the Governor too came to be rejected, hence the respondent preferred apetition for writ before this Court and that came to be accepted by the judgment impugned. Learned Single Judge, while setting aside the orders passed by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and reviewing authority, held that the delinquent employee was honourably exonerated from the charges levelled against him, therefore, on basis of the same set of evidence he could have not been penalised through disciplinary action.

(3.) While challenging the judgment aforesaid, contention of counsel for the appellant State is that standard of proof required in recording a finding of conviction in a criminal case and in departmental proceedings are distinct and different. In a criminal case it is essential to prove a charge beyond all reasonable doubt, whereas in a departmental proceedings preponderance of probability would serve the purpose and in the case in hand the disciplinary authority on preponderance of probability reached at adefinite conclusion, thus, that was not at all warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.