Sabina, J. - (1.) PETITIONER has filed this petition challenging the orders dated 9.6.2006 (Annexure P -5), 19.2.2009 (Annexure P -9), 26.2.2009 (Annexure P -10) and 18.4.2011 (Annexure P -13).
(2.) CASE of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was working as Development Officer at Branch Office Phagwara. Allegations of corruption were levelled against the petitioner that he had accepted Rs. 2,000/ - from Sawinder Singh as illegal gratification. Charge sheet was issued to the petitioner and he submitted his reply to the same. Enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the allegations levelled against the petitioner. Enquiry officer submitted his report Annexure P -2. Petitioner was issued a show cause notice and vide impugned order Annexure P -5, petitioner was ordered to be dismissed from service. Petitioner apprised the respondents that on identical allegations, criminal case has been registered against him and he had been acquitted by the Court vide judgment dated 1.12.2008 (Annexure P -6). Representations moved by the petitioner were rejected vide orders dated 19.2.2009 and 26.2.2009. Thereafter, petitioner filed CWP No. 19112 of 2009 in this Court challenging the orders Annexure P -5, Annexure P -9 and Annexure P -10. However the said writ petition was got dismissed as withdrawn to enable the petitioner to avail his remedy of appeal. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide impugned order (Annexure P -13). Hence, the present petition by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner was liable to be reinstated in service as he had been acquitted by the criminal Court. The allegations against the petitioner in the criminal proceedings as well as in the departmental proceedings, were identical.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the departmental enquiry was held against the petitioner qua the allegations of corruption, levelled against him. The charges levelled against the petitioner were duly proved in the departmental enquiry. The fact that petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case had no bearing on the departmental proceedings. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on 'Samar Bahadur Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others', : (2011) 9 Supreme Court Cases 94, wherein it was held as under: - Acquittal in the criminal case shall have no bearing or relevance to the facts of the departmental proceedings as the standard of proof in both the cases are totally different. In a criminal case, the prosecution has to prove the criminal case beyond all reasonable doubt whereas in a departmental proceedings, the department has to prove only preponderance of probabilities. In the present case, we find that the department has been able to prove the case on the standard of preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, the submissions of the counsel appearing for the appellant are found to be without any merit.;