M.M. Kumar, J. - (1.) THE unsuccessful writ petitioner -appellant has filed the instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the judgment dated 5.12.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition and upholding the order dated 4.3.2009 removing him from service on the allegation that he had accepted illegal gratification (P -5) and subsequent orders dated 4.6.2009 (P -7) and 9.7.2010 (P -8) rejecting his statutory appeal and revision. Brief facts of the case are that a case FIR No. 50, dated 21.8.2006 has been registered against the petitioner -appellant, who was working as an Exempted Head Constable in the Haryana Police, with the allegations that he demanded '5,000/ - as gratification to hush up a vehicle theft case registered against one Manjit Singh, the nephew of the complainant Ram Bilas. In the criminal trial, the Trial Court acquitted the petitioner -appellant of the charges leveled against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act finding them to be unreliable. A departmental inquiry was also initiated against him wherein the Enquiry Officer found him guilty of the charges, vide inquiry report dated 19.11.2007. Thereafter, the punishing authority -Superintendent of Police, Hisar, after concurring with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer; giving show cause notice dated 12.2.2009 and compliance of the principles of natural justice, passed an order dated 4.3.2009, dismissing the petitioner -appellant from service (P -5). The statutory appeal and revision filed by the petitioner -appellant were rejected vide orders dated 4.6.2009 (P -7) and 9.7.2010 (P -8). Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner -appellant filed the writ petition relatable to the instant appeal primarily on the ground that once he has been acquitted of the charges leveled in the criminal case, which are identical and similar to the charges in the departmental proceedings, then no occasion arises to held him guilty and the dismissal order has been wrongly passed and liable to be set aside. The petitioner -appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of GM. Tank versus State of Gujarat and others : 2006 (5) SCC 446. The learned Single Judge, however, rejected the contentions raised by observing as under: - There would have been considerable ease in accepting the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner on evaluating the case of the petitioner in the backdrop of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat and others (supra), but for the fact that the departmental enquiry against the petitioner stood concluded much prior to the conclusion of the criminal trial. The departmental proceedings against the petitioner which were concluded in 2007 and the order of dismissal passed in 2009, whereas the acquittal was awarded a year thereafter on 29.5.2010. The parameters of the standard of proof required in departmental proceedings is acutely distinct from the one that is required in a criminal trial. In the departmental proceedings, overwhelming consideration which weighs with the authorities is to see whether the delinquent employee has conducted himself in a manner befitting the assignment that he holds, whereas the evidence in a criminal trial has to be of exemplary nature; credible enough to erase any suspicion in the mind of the Court regarding the complicity and guilty of the accused.
(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for the petitioner appellant at a considerable length and are of the view that once no procedural lapse has been pointed out, the findings of the Enquiry Officer are based on evidence and the charges have been established then there cannot be any room for this Court to interfere in the order of dismissal, dated 4.3.2009 (P -5). The Courts are not a Court of Appeal over and above the Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate/Revisional Authority. As a concept of law the Courts cannot re -appreciate evidence to reach a conclusion different than the one recorded by the Enquiry Officer merely because another view is possible. In that regard reliance may be placed on the observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India versus Ramesh Dinkar Punde : 2006 (7) SCC 212. We are not impressed with the argument that since the petitioner -appellant has been acquitted in the criminal case there was no legal warrant to hold the departmental proceedings against him. On the aforesaid issue law is well settled that inquiry proceedings and criminal proceedings could be even conducted simultaneously. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that the standard of proof in both the proceedings is entirely different. There is no dearth of authorities for the proposition that unless the facts are complicated and some legal acumen is required there is no bar for continuation of disciplinary as well as criminal proceedings. In NOIDA Enterprises Association versus NOIDA, 2007 (2) RSJ 504, it has been held that standard of proof required in departmental proceedings is not the same as required to prove a criminal charge. Even if there is an acquittal in criminal proceedings, the same does not bar the departmental proceedings. In the said case, the decision of the Government in deciding not to continue with the departmental proceedings after acquittal in the criminal charge was held untenable and quashed. The conceptual difference between departmental proceedings and the criminal proceedings has been highlighted by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in several cases which were also referred to in the case of NOIDA Enterprises (supra) and in this regard reference was made to Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan versus T. Srinivas : 2004 (7) SCC 442, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. versus Sarvesh Berry : 2005 (10) SCC 471 and Uttaranchal Road Transport Corpn. versus Mansaram Nainwal : (2006) 6 SCC 366. The position in law relating to acquittal in criminal case, its effect on the departmental proceedings and reinstatement in service has been dealt with by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Union of India versus Bihari Lal Sidhana : 1997 (4) SCC 385. In Capt. M. Paul Anthony versus Bharat Gold Mines Limited, 1999(2) SCT 660, it is again stated that the effect of the acquittal in a criminal case on the departmental proceedings would depend upon the fact situation in each case. In the present case there is nothing on the record to suggest that there were such facts which were so complicated so as to require long drawn proceedings. Therefore, we reject the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner -appellant has not been able to point out either any violation of the principles of natural justice nor any statutory rules warranting a conclusion that he has not been treated fairly. Once the findings of fact are well based and the procedural requirements contemplated by the Rules have been complied with then the quantum of punishment cannot be interfered with. For the reasons aforementioned, we find no ground warranting admission of the instant appeal. There is no legal infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.;