D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) I.A. No.593 of 2018 1. This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 20 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the reasons stated in this interlocutory application, especially in paragraph nos.04 to 09, there are reasonable reasons for condonation of delay. We therefore, condone the delay in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 3. Accordingly, I.A. No. 593 of 2018 is allowed and disposed of. L.P.A. No.378 of 2017 This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in writ petition being W.P.(S) No.897 of 2006, judgment dated 16.05.2017 whereby, the petition preferred by this appellant was dismissed and the order passed by the disciplinary authority of the dismissal dated 21.04.2003 was confirmed. There is a charge against this appellant - delinquent, that there is gross - misconduct committed by the delinquent and thereby there is dereliction of duty, as he has caused two rounds of firing upon his superior officer, and his order of dismissal was confirmed by the disciplinary appellate authority vide order dated 16.08.2003, and further it was confirmed in the revision by the revisional authority by order dated 10.05.2004. These orders were under challenge by this appellant (original petitioner) only on the ground that there was acquittal in Sessions Case No.666 of 2000 vide order of acquittal dated 17.11.2005 from the charges under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
(2.) Arguments canvassed by the counsel for the appellant (original petitioner) : I. Counsel appearing for the appellant (original petitioner) has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not properly appreciated the fact that there is honourable acquittal of the appellant by the Sessions Court in Sessions Case No.666 of 2000. The charges levelled against this appellant in a departmental proceedings and on criminal side are the same charges and once there is honourable acquittal, the order of dismissal, passed by the respondents dated 21.04.2003, deserves to be quashed and set aside. II. It is also submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the judgment upon which the reliance is placed by the respondents, especially (2013) 1 SCC 598 is based upon different facts, because there was no honourable acquittal in that case whereas in the facts of the present case there is honourable acquittal of this appellant from the charges under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code as well as from the charges under Section 27 of the Arms Act. These aspects of the matters have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition preferred by this appellant. III. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that on civil side as well as on criminal side there are same set of facts. Counsel for the appellant has relied on the following decisions:- (a) (1999) 3 SCC 679; (b) (2006) 5 SCC 446; (c) (2015) 2 LAB. IC. 2054. On the basis of the aforesaid decisions, it is submitted that if there is honourable acquittal from the criminal charges, the disciplinary authority's order ought to have been quashed by the learned Single Judge.
(3.) Arguments canvassed by the counsel for the respondents - Union of India: I. Counsel for the respondents - Assistant Solicitor General of India has submitted that gross misconduct has been committed by this appellant - delinquent, who was serving with the Central Industrial Security Force as a Constable. That when he was on duty, he opened fire upon his superior from the rifle given by the Union of India. In fact there were two rounds of firing upon one Mr. M. L. Meena, Inspector, C.I.S.F., and upon his report this appellant was suspended on 27.02.2000 because of his misconduct on the same date. Thereafter, Enquiry Officer was appointed, charge-sheet was given and during the course of enquiry several witnesses were examined. Enquiry Officer has given its report on 29.03.2003. Charges were held as proved and on the basis of the Enquiry Officer's report, disciplinary authority has passed an order of dismissal of this appellant vide order dated 21.04.2003. Against this order, departmental appeal was preferred which was dismissed vide order dated 16.08.2003, against which, revision application was also preferred by this appellant which was dismissed by the revisional authority vide order dated 10.05.2004. II. It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondents that in Sessions Case No.666 of 2000 acquittal order was passed by the learned trial court dated 17.11.2005 in which P.W. - 1, P.W. - 8, P.W. - 9, and P.W. - 10 have not supported the case of the prosecution. This is how the acquittal order has been passed. III. It is also submitted by the counsel for the respondents that even if there is acquittal by the learned trial court in a sessions case, still departmental proceedings can be conducted by the respondents. In a criminal proceedings charges are to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in the departmental proceedings charges are to be proved on the basis of the preponderance of the probabilities. In the facts of the present case, Enquiry Officer has given a report much earlier than the date of the acquittal. IV. Counsel for the respondents has relied upon the following decisions :- (a) (2013) 1 SCC 598; (b) (2018) 1 SCC 797. On the basis of the aforesaid decisions, it is submitted by the Assistant Solicitor General of India that even if there is acquittal by the learned trial court from the criminal charges, disciplinary proceedings can be initiated and the disciplinary action can always be taken against such delinquent. Reasons :;