M.Y. Eqbal, J. - (1.) PETITIONER has prayed for quashing the order as contained in Memo No. GM (P & IR)/Writ/KU -CH/32/3272 & 3273 dated 10.8.2005 whereby the representation of the petitioners have been rejected.
(2.) PETITIONERS were in the service of the respondents. In the year 1995 they were subjected to departmental proceeding and they were dismissed from service by order dated 7.6.1996 and 22.6.1996. It further reveals that criminal cases were also instituted against the petitioner. In the said criminal case petitioners were acquitted by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Hazaribagh vide judgment dated 29.8.2002 passed in ST No. 178/99. Petitioners, thereafter, filed representation for their reinstatement, which has been rejected by the impugned order. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly contended that petitioners have been acquitted in the criminal case on the self same allegation and for similar charges and are entitled for reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits.
(3.) FROM perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that respondents have rejected the representation of the petitioner on the ground inter alia that in the departmental proceeding the charges have been proved on the basis of evidence of seven witnesses examined on behalf of Management. The relevant portion of the order passed by the respondents on the representation of the petitioner reads as under: That apart from the above the Hon'ble Apex Court Judgment in your case is further not attracted in as much as in both the proceedings i.e., departmental & criminal, there are no same set of witnesses, examined. It is evident that in the departmental proceeding in relation to you, whereas seven management witnesses have been examined on the other hand in the criminal case ST No. 178.99 the prosecution has examined only three witnesses. That further, from the enquiry report; I did find that the victim official Sri B.N. Tripathi in the departmental enquiry deposed that you along with Sri J.P.N. Singh assaulted him and I further find that the other management witnesses. MW -2, MW -3. MW - 4, MW -5 & MW -7 substantiated the fact of assault on him. These witnesses deposed to the effect, that, while they approached to the place of occurrence the mob started dispersing and amongst the mob they recognized you and the co -accused Sri J.P.N. Singh. All these witnesses were not examined by the prosecution in ST No. 178/99. That further it is evident that in S.T. No. 178/99 the prosecution did not examine the I.O. and the remaining charge -sheet witnesses and non -examination of these witnesses, according to the learned Court below were fatal for the case. In the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the conclusion arrived at in the departmental enquiry is justified as the standard of proof required in a departmental enquiry is preponderance of probabilities. In the light of the foregoing , your appeal stands rejected and disposed of accordingly as above.;