B.D.AGARWAL, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. B. Das, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner and Mr. DC Nath, learned Government counsel appearing for the State respondents.
(2.) THE writ petitioner is challenging the order dated 27.6.2000 whereby the Superintendent of Police, South Tripura District has imposed penalty of stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect and also to treat the period of suspension, 16.4.1996 to 25.2.1997 as not on duty in a departmental proceeding. The impugned order has been assailed primarily on the ground that for the same incident a criminal proceeding was also initiated and in the criminal proceeding, the writ petitioner has been acquitted and as such the punishment in the disciplinary proceeding should also be quashed. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr. reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 : AIR 1999 SC 1416.
(3.) ON the other hand the learned Government counsel submitted that the issue before the criminal Court was different than those in the disciplinary proceeding. According to the learned counsel, witnesses in both the proceedings were also not one and the same and, as such, the acquittal of the writ petitioner on benefit of doubt cannot be considered in the departmental proceeding. In support of this submission, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in (2006) 4 GLT 614: (2007) 1 GLR 116 (DB) Shafiqul Haque Mazumdar Vs. Union of India & Ors.) and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Sr. Suptd of Post Offices & Ors. Vs. A. Gopalan; reported in AIR 1999 SC 1514 and the judgment rendered in the case of Ajit Kumar Nag Vs. General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2005) AIR SCW 4986. In the case of A. Gopal (supra), the Apex Court has held that nature and scope of criminal case are different from those of departmental disciplinary proceedings and an order of acquittal, therefore, cannot conclude the departmental proceedings. Their Lordships have further observed that in a criminal case charge has to be proved by the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt while in the departmental proceedings the standard of proof for proving the charge is preponderance of probabilities.;