M.M.KUMAR, J. - (1.) THE prayer made in this petition is for quashing order dated 17.2.2003 (Annexure P -1) passed by the Superintendent of Police, Sonepat dismissing the petitioner from service. The principal ground of challenge is that the petitioner has been acquitted in the case FIR No. 55 dated 8.9.2000 by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sonepat vide order dated 6.2.2006. It is appropriate to mention that when the petitioner was working as Constable he was charged with negligence of duty and a regular departmental enquiry was held against him. On the basis of the departmental enquiry, the Superintendent of Police, Sonepat came to the conclusion that the accused Narinder in case FIR No. 59 of 1988 registered under Section 302 IPC P.S. Ganaur escaped from the police custody due to gravest negligence of the police party and was absconding even at that time. It was further found that the negligence of the petitioner could not be condoned and the petitioner was dismissed from service with immediate effect as is evident from the perusal of the order Annexure P - 1. The appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected by the appellate authority on 17.4.2003 and a revision petition was also dismissed by the Director General of Police on 22.1.2004. The petitioner challenged the afore -mentioned order in CWP No. 10393 of 2005 which has again been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 14.7.2005 by observing as under : "We have perused the impugned order. We are of the view that the misconduct of the petitioner was serious enough warranting dismissal from service. We, therefore, find no merit in the writ petition. Dismissed."
(2.) THE petitioner further challenged the order of the Division Bench in SLP (C) No. 25152 of 2005 which was also dismissed on 16.12.2005. On the ground that the petitioner was prosecuted in a criminal court where he has been acquitted, the prayer made in the instant petition is to reinstate him in service.
(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel at a considerable length, we find that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer with regard to his negligence which resulted into the escape of accused Narinder who was facing trial under Section 302 IPC have been affirmed by the appellate authority and the revisional authority. A Division Bench of this Court has also expressed opinion on merits holding that the mis -conduct of the petitioner was serious enough warranting his dismissal from service as is evident from the order dated 14.7.2005 to which a reference has already been made in the paras above. Even the S.L.P. has been dismissed. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to open the issue once again. Moreover, the standard of proof in the departmental proceedings and the criminal proceedings are entirely different. It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that merely because a delinquent employee has been acquitted of a criminal charge is no ground for his exoneration in a departmental inquiry. In the case of Nelson Motis v. Union of India, 1993(1) SCT 133 (SC) : (1992) 4 SCC 711, their Lordships of the Supreme Court has held as under : "5. So far the first point is concerned, namely, whether the disciplinary proceedings could have been continued in the face of the acquittal of the appellant in the criminal case, the plea has no substance whatsoever and does not merit a detailed consideration. The nature and scope of a criminal case are very different from those of a departmental disciplinary proceeding and an order of acquittal, therefore, cannot conclude the departmental proceeding. Besides, the Tribunal has pointed out that the acts which led to the initiation of the departmental disciplinary proceeding were not exactly the same which were the subject -matter of the criminal case." ;