- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) IN view of the gravity of charges, departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner u/rule 16 of CCA Rules by imposing the punishment of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect. It is pertinent to mention here that on 3. 4. 2000, during the pendency of enquiry, the petitioner had admitted his guilt and requested the authorities to take lenient view in the matter as regards the quantum of punishment to be imposed. It is under the above circumstances that instead of imposing the penalty of removal from service, lesser punishment of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect was imposed which in my view is not open to challenge. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that he has been acquitted of criminal charges for the offence u/s. 353, 504 IPC by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur, vide order dt. 31. 7. 1998. In this regard, the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr. (1), has been cited, wherein similar controversy had arisen before the Apex Court. It was observed by the Apex Court that the departmental enquiry as well as criminal proceedings can continue independently since there is a consensus of judicial opinion on a basic principle that proceedings where departmental enquiry is pending against the delinquent and also the proceedings in a criminal case which are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings in common, the departmental proceedings may continue. Basis for this proposition is that proceedings in a criminal case and departmental proceedings operate in distinct and different jurisdictional areas. In departmental proceedings factors operating in the mind of the disciplinary authority may be many, such as enforcement of discipline or to investigate level of integrity of delinquent or other staff. The standard of proof required in those proceedings is also different from that required in a criminal case, while in departmental proceedings, the standard of proof is one of preponderance of probabilities, in a crimi- nal case, the charge has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel has argued that a lenient view be taken in the matter as regards the penalty imposed on the delinquent. However, since a lenient view has already been taken in the matter by imposing lesser penalty of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect, in my view, no interference is called for looking to the gravity of charge against the delinquent which stands established on the basis of Enquiry Report.
(3.) ANOTHER argument which has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the impugned charge sheet dated 13. 1. 97 (Ann. 5) is that earlier also the petitioner was charge sheeted by the department and enquiry was initiated against him under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules wayback as on 20. 06. 1997. Thereafter, on the basis of same charges, no punishment was imposed on the petitioner as he had participated in the enquiry. In my view, the department is not precluded from conducting the enquiry on the basis of the same charge sheet which was earlier served on the petitioner vide Annexure-2, since the enquiry was not initiated against the petitioner though only the charge-sheet was issued, whereas on 13. 1. 97 not only charge sheet was issued, but also enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was given full opportunity of hearing and participation and thereafter punishment was imposed. In my view, this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is thus devoid of any substance. As regards, natural justice, keeping in view the nature of the charges, which have already been established, no interference is called for in the impugned order. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner had also availed the remedy of appeal against the order of Disciplinary Authority and the appellate authority dismissed the appeal on 3. 4. 2000 concurring with the findings of the disciplinary authority. ;