# Ashok Kumar Srivastava v. U.P. Public Services Tribunal and others

- **Citation:** (2006) 1 ILRA 83
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-11-18
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48590 of 1999
- **Bench:** Dr. B.S. Chauhan, Shishir Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ashok-kumar-srivastava-v-u-p-public-services-tribunal-and-others-40554
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Constitution of India Art. 311 (2)-
Departmental
enquiry
and
Criminal
Proceeding-difference
explained-even
after acquittal in criminal proceeding-the
punishment of dismissal in departmental
proceeding can not be altered-standard
proof of both proceedings-held-quite
different-nor can be termed as double
jeopardy.

Held: Para 12 and 21

The
question
of
considering
reinstatement after decision of acquittal
or discharge by a competent criminal
court arises only and only if the dismissal
from services was based on conviction
by the criminal court in view of the
provisions of Article 311 (2) (b) of the
Constitution or analogous provisions in
the statutory rules applicable in a case.
In a case where enquiry had been held
independently
of
the
criminal
proceedings, acquittal in a criminal court
is of no help. The law is otherwise. Even
if a person stood acquitted by a criminal
court, domestic enquiry can be held, the
reason being that the standard of proof
required in a domestic enquiry and that
in
a
criminal
case
are
altogether
different.

Thus, there can be no doubt regarding
the settled legal proposition that as the
standard
of
proof
in
both
the
proceedings is quite different, and the
termination
is
not
based
on
mere
conviction of an employee in a criminal
case, the acquittal of the employee in
criminal case cannot be the basis of
taking away the effect of departmental
proceedings. Nor such an action of the
department can be termed as double
jeopardy. The submission made in this
regard is untenable in view of the law
discussed herein above.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1982 SC-1249
AIR 1917 P.C.-3
AIR 1921 Cal. 584
AIR 1926 P.C.-136
1995 (6) SCC-45
1997 (4) SCC-662
AIR 2003 SC-2182
AIR 1955 SC-566
AIR 1971 SC-1244
AIR 1999 SC-1416
AIR 2004 SC-4144
AIR 1967 SC-223
AIR 2004 SC-4127
2004 (8) SCC-200

## Text

1 All] Ashok Kumar Srivastava V. U.P. Public Services Tribunal, U.P. and others
83
10. Let a copy of this order be
furnished to the learned A.G.A. free of
cost
for
intimating
the
authority
concerned.

Application Rejected.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.11.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE SHISHIR KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48590 of 1999

Ashok Kumar Srivastava
...Petitioner
Versus
U.P. Public Services Tribunal and others

 ....Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri K.N. Mishra
Sri P.K. Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution of India Art. 311 (2)-
Departmental
enquiry
and
Criminal
Proceeding-difference
explained-even
after acquittal in criminal proceeding-the
punishment of dismissal in departmental
proceeding can not be altered-standard
proof of both proceedings-held-quite
different-nor can be termed as double
jeopardy.

Held: Para 12 and 21

The
question
of
considering
reinstatement after decision of acquittal
or discharge by a competent criminal
court arises only and only if the dismissal
from services was based on conviction
by the criminal court in view of the
provisions of Article 311 (2) (b) of the
Constitution or analogous provisions in
the statutory rules applicable in a case.
In a case where enquiry had been held
independently
of
the
criminal
proceedings, acquittal in a criminal court
is of no help. The law is otherwise. Even
if a person stood acquitted by a criminal
court, domestic enquiry can be held, the
reason being that the standard of proof
required in a domestic enquiry and that
in
a
criminal
case
are
altogether
different.

Thus, there can be no doubt regarding
the settled legal proposition that as the
standard
of
proof
in
both
the
proceedings is quite different, and the
termination
is
not
based
on
mere
conviction of an employee in a criminal
case, the acquittal of the employee in
criminal case cannot be the basis of
taking away the effect of departmental
proceedings. Nor such an action of the
department can be termed as double
jeopardy. The submission made in this
regard is untenable in view of the law
discussed herein above.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1982 SC-1249
AIR 1917 P.C.-3
AIR 1921 Cal. 584
AIR 1926 P.C.-136
1995 (6) SCC-45
1997 (4) SCC-662
AIR 2003 SC-2182
AIR 1955 SC-566
AIR 1971 SC-1244
AIR 1999 SC-1416
AIR 2004 SC-4144
AIR 1967 SC-223
AIR 2004 SC-4127
2004 (8) SCC-200

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
for setting aside the judgment and order
dated 30.7.1999, passed by the U.P.
Public
Services
Tribunal,
Lucknow,
hereinafter
called
the
"Tribunal",
dismissing the claim petition of the
petitioner against the order of removal
from service dated 16.7.1997.
84 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
2. The facts and circumstances
giving rise to this case are that, petitioner
who had been working as Assistant Wasil
Baqi Nawis (AWBN) in the office of the
S.D.O., Khaga, District Fatehpur, was
assigned the duty of preparing salary bills
of Collection Amins and Class IV
employees of the Tehsil and to get the
said bills cleared from the Treasury for
distribution amongst the employees of the
Tehsil. During the audit of accounts, it
came to the knowledge of the authorities
that the petitioner had embezzled a huge
amount to the tune of Rs.10,88,454/. An
F.I.R. was lodged immediately against the
petitioner at the Police Station Khaga on
4.11.1995 under Sections 467/468, 409
I.P.C. The disciplinary proceedings were
also initiated and the petitioner was put
under suspension. He approached this
Court by filing Writ Petition No. 37983 of
1994 against his suspension but the same
was
dismissed
vide
order
dated
28.11.1994, directing the opposite parties
to conclude the enquiry within six
months, and the petitioner was directed to
cooperate with the enquiry proceedings. A
charge-sheet was served upon him on
1.5.1996 and a supplementary charge
sheet on 20.06.1996. The petitioner did
not submit any reply to the said chargesheets; rather moved a large number of
applications, requiring copies of certain
documents for the purpose of preparing
his reply. The Enquiry Officer was
appointed and he conducted the enquiry
on the said charges. The petitioner did not
participate in the enquiry and the enquiry
report was submitted on 19.2.1997. The
disciplinary authority issued a show cause
notice dated 28.2.1997, but the petitioner
did not file any response to the same. The
disciplinary
authority
accepted
the
enquiry
report
and
imposed
the
punishment of removal of the petitioner
from service vide order dated 16.7.1997.
Petitioner claims to have filed an appeal
on 19.9.1997 against the said order of
punishment,
but
the
respondent
authorities denied having ever received
the copy of the said appeal. Being
aggrieved, he preferred a claim petition
which was contested by the respondents
on the ground that the department had
suffered a huge loss because of the
embezzlement by the petitioner. The
documents were made available to him
and certain documents which were
considered to be confidential were shown
to the petitioner in the presence of the
S.D.O., Khaga, and therefore, there was
no merit in the petition and it was liable to
be dismissed. After considering the rival
submissions made by the parties, the
learned Tribunal rejected the claim
petition vide judgment and order dated
30.07.1999. Hence this petition.

3. Shri K.N. Mishra, learned counsel
for the petitioner has submitted that the
enquiry was not conducted in accordance
with law. The copies of the documents
relied upon by the Enquiry Officer were
never made available to the petitioner.
Thus, he had no opportunity to defend
himself. The criminal court has acquitted
the petitioner vide judgment and order
dated 7.5.2000 in respect of the same
charges. This Court must examine the
statement of the petitioner who deposed
before the criminal court, on the basis of
which order of acquittal dated 7.5.2000
has been passed. In fact during the
pendency
of
the
criminal
case,
disciplinary proceedings should have been
kept in abeyance. The decision of the
authority
concerned
is
most
arbitrary.Judgment impugned is against
the record available. Therefore, the
petition deserves to be allowed.
1 All] Ashok Kumar Srivastava V. U.P. Public Services Tribunal, U.P. and others
85
4. On the contrary, learned Standing
Counsel has submitted that the petitioner
had embezzled a huge amount. The State
exchequer has suffered a loss. All the
copies of the relevant documents have
been furnished to the petitioner and where
it was not possible to furnish the copy of
the documents, he had inspected the said
record in the presence of the S.D.O.
Acquittal by the criminal court does not
vitiate the order of the disciplinary
authority removing the petitioner from
service. The findings recorded by the
criminal court are not binding, for the
purpose
of
disciplinary
proceedings
against a delinquent. The statements made
by the witnesses in the criminal court
cannot be read, as the findings recorded
by the criminal courts, cannot bind the
authority while passing the order which
entails civil consequences. The scope of
judicial review is limited to the extent that
proceedings have been conducted in
accordance with law as it lies against the
decision making procedure and not
against the decision itself. No fault has
been found by the Tribunal in holding the
enquiry. The Court cannot examine the
judgment of the Tribunal or the order of
the disciplinary authority as an appellate
authority, rather it has to satisfy itself that
the enquiry has been conducted in
accordance with law. Thus, the petition is
liable to be dismissed.

5. We have considered the rival
submissions made by the learned counsel
for the parties and perused the record.

6. The Tribunal after examining the
case
microscopically
recorded
the
findings of fact as under:-

(i)
The conduct of the petitioner
throughout had been of noncooperation with the enquiry. Right
from the stage he was suspended,
he did not attend the office where
he was attached, despite specific
orders passed by the competent
authority in this behalf. Even the
charge-sheet could be served upon
him with great difficulty.
(ii)
He was supplied some of the
documents as admitted by him. He
was
also
informed
that
the
documents of which copies could
not be served under rules, could be
got inspected by him on his making
application to that effect.
(iii) It is also clear from the enquiry
report that the documents demanded
by the petitioner were supplied to
him along with the charge-sheet
dated 23/27.5.1996.
(iv) The petitioner was given ample
opportunity to submit reply to the
charge-sheets, but he did not avail
the same. Petitioner deliberately
avoided participation in the enquiry.
(v)
The enquiry had been conducted in
accordance with law.
(vi) The order of punishment had been
passed on the basis of the material
on record.

7. There is nothing on record, on the
basis of which it can be held that any
finding recorded by the Tribunal is
perverse being based on no evidence or is
contrary to the evidence

8. Relying on the contents of the
supplementary
affidavit,
Sri
Misra
contends that the Tribunal failed to advert
to the submissions and evidence referred
to in the said affidavit and urged that the
findings
recorded
do
not
reflect
appreciation of the averments on behalf of
the petitioner in correct perspective.
86 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
9.

There
is nothing in the
supplementary affidavit to show that such
documents had been placed before the
Tribunal as the petitioner has not
mentioned anywhere in the said affidavit
that the said documents had been part of
the record of the Tribunal. In the absence
of such pleadings we are unable to deal
with such submissions. If the petitioner
was so aggrieved, he could have filed a
review petition on the ground that the
submission made on his behalf had not
been dealt with by the learned Tribunal.
(Vide State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramdas
Shrinivas Nayak & Anr., AIR 1982 SC
1249; Madhusudan Chowdhri & Ors. Vs.
Mst. Chandrabati Chowdhrain & Ors.,
AIR 1917 PC 30; Sarat Chandra Maiti &
Ors. Vs. Bibhabati Debi & Ors., AIR
1921 Cal 584; The King Emperor Vs.
Barendra Kumar Ghose, AIR 1924 Cal
257 (F.B.); R.M.K.R.M. Somasundaran
Chetty Vs. M.R.M.V.L. Subramanian
Chetty, AIR 1926 PC 136; Union of India
& ors. Vs. N.V. Phaneendran, 1995 (6)
SCC 45; Kanwar Singh vs. State of
Haryana & ors., (1997) 4 SCC 662; and
Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd &
Ors. Vs. P. Surya Bhagvan, AIR 2003
SC 2182).

10. It has further been urged on
behalf of the petitioner by Shri Mishra
that the petitioner stood acquitted on
similar charges in a criminal case vide
judgment and order dated 7.5.2000. Even
if it is assumed that the contents of para 7
of the supplementary affidavit dated
16.11.2005 are correct and petitioner had
been acquitted of the charges in criminal
case, in our humble opinion, it does not
have any bearing on the case.

11. It is settled legal proposition that
findings of fact recorded by the criminal
court are not binding on civil Courts or
upon the authorities while passing orders
entailing civil consequences. It is settled
law that decisions of Civil Courts are
binding on Criminal Courts but the
converse is not true. (Vide Anil Behari
Ghosh Vs. Smt. Latika Bala Dassi & Ors.,
AIR 1955 SC 566; and M/s. Karamchand
Ganga Pershad & Anr. Vs. Union of India
& Ors., AIR 1971 SC 1244; V.M. Shah
Vs. State of Maharastra & Anr., AIR 1996
SC 339; and K.G. Premshankar Vs.
Inspector of Police, (2002) 8 SCC 87).

Therefore, the submission made in
this respect is not worth acceptance.

12. The question of considering
reinstatement after decision of acquittal or
discharge by a competent criminal court
arises only and only if the dismissal from
services was based on conviction by the
criminal court in view of the provisions of
Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution or
analogous provisions in the statutory rules
applicable in a case. In a case where
enquiry had been held independently of
the criminal proceedings, acquittal in a
criminal court is of no help. The law is
otherwise. Even if a person stood
acquitted by a criminal court, domestic
enquiry can be held, the reason being that
the standard of proof required in a
domestic enquiry and that in a criminal
case are altogether different. In a criminal
case, standard of proof is beyond
reasonable doubt while in a domestic
enquiry
it
is
probability
of
preponderances. In Nelson Motis Vs.
Union of India & Anr., AIR 1992 SC
1981, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as
under:-

"The nature and scope of a criminal
case are very different from those of a
1 All] Ashok Kumar Srivastava V. U.P. Public Services Tribunal, U.P. and others
87
departmental disciplinary proceeding and
an order of acquittal, therefore, cannot
conclude the departmental proceeding."

13. In State of Karnataka & Anr. Vs
T. Venkataramanappa, (1996) 6 SCC 455,
the Apex Court held that acquittal in a
criminal case cannot be held to be a bar to
hold departmental enquiry for the same
misconduct for the reason that in a
criminal trial, standard of proof is
different as the case is to be proved
beyond reasonable doubt but in the
departmental proceeding, such a strict
proof of misconduct is not required. In the
said case, the departmental proceedings
had been quashed by the Tribunal as the
delinquent had been acquitted by the
criminal court of the same charges. The
Apex Court reversed the judgment of the
court below observing as under:-

"It was, thus, beyond the ken of the
Tribunal
to
have
scuttled
the
departmental proceedings against the
respondent on the footing that such
question of bigamy should normally not
be taken up for decision in departmental
inquiries, as the decision of competent
courts tending to be decision in rem
would stand at the highest pedestal. There
was clear fallacy in such view because for
purposes
of
Rule
28,
such
strict
standards, as would warrant a conviction
for bigamy under Section 494 IPC, may
not, to begin with, be necessary. We,
therefore, explain away the orders of the
Tribunal to the fore extent that Rule 28
can be invoked.... Let the inquiry be held."

14.

Similarly,
in
Senior
Superintendent of Post Offices Vs. A.
Gopalan, (1997) 11 SCC 239, the
Supreme Court held that "in a criminal
case the charge has to be proved by
standard of proof beyond reasonable
doubt while in departmental proceeding,
the standard of proof for proving the
charge is preponderance of probabilities."
The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in
holding that "in view of the acquittal of
the respondent by the criminal court on
the
charges....
the
finding
on
the
......charge
in
the
departmental
proceedings cannot be up-held and must
be set-aside

In State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. K.
Allabaksh, (2000) 10 SCC 177, while
dismissing the appeal against acquittal by
the High Court, the Apex Court observed
as under:-

"That acquittal of the respondent
shall not be construed as a clear
exoneration of the respondent, for the
allegations
call
for
departmental
proceedings, if not already initiated,
against him."

15. While dealing with a similar
issue, a three-Judges Bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Ajit Kumar Nag Vs.
General
Manager
(PJ)
Indian
Oil
Corporation Ltd., (2005) 7 SCC 764, held
as under:-

"In our judgment, the law is fairly
well settled. Acquittal by a criminal court
would not debar an employer from
exercising power in accordance with the
Rules and Regulations in force. The two
proceedings, criminal and departmental,
are entirely different. They operate in
different
fields
and
have
different
objectives. Whereas the object of criminal
trial is to inflict appropriate punishment
on the offender, the purpose of enquiry
proceedings is to deal with the delinquent
departmentally and to impose penalty in
88 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
accordance with the service rules. In a
criminal trial, incriminating statement
made
by
the
accused
in
certain
circumstances or before certain officers is
totally inadmissible in evidence. Such
strict rules of evidence and procedure
would
not
apply
to
departmental
proceedings. The degree of proof which is
necessary to order a conviction is
different from the degree of proof
necessary to record the commission of
delinquency.
The
rule
relating
to
appreciation of evidence in the two
proceedings is also not similar. In
criminal law, burden of proof is on the
prosecution and unless the prosecution is
able to prove the guilt of the accused
"beyond reasonable doubt", he cannot be
convicted by a court of law. In a
departmental enquiry, on the other hand,
penalty can be imposed on the delinquent
officer on a finding recorded on the basis
of "preponderance of probability."

16.The
issue
as
to
whether
disciplinary proceedings can be held at
the time when the delinquent employee is
facing the criminal trial, has also been
considered from time to time. In State of
Rajasthan Vs. B.K. Meena & Ors., AIR
1997 SC 13, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
while dealing with the issue observed as
under:-

"It would be evident from the above
decisions that each of them starts with the
indisputable proposition that there is no
legal bar for both proceedings to go on
simultaneously and then say that in
certain
situations,
it
may
not
be
'desirable', 'advisable' or 'appropriate' to
proceed with the disciplinary enquiry
when a criminal case is pending on
identical charges...........The only ground
suggested in the above decisions as
constituting a valid ground for staying the
disciplinary proceedings is that 'the
defence of the employee in the criminal
case may not be prejudiced'. This ground
has, however, been hedged in by
providing further that this may be done in
cases of grave nature involving questions
of fact and law. In our respectful opinion,
it means that not only the charges must be
grave but that the case must involve
complicated questions of law and fact.
Moreover, 'advisability', 'desirability' or
'propriety', as the case may be, has to be
determined in each case taking into
consideration
all
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case............One of
the contending considerations is that the
disciplinary enquiry cannot be - and
should not be - delayed unduly. So far as
criminal cases are concerned, it is well
known that they drag on endlessly where
high officials or persons holding high
public offices are involved. They get
bogged down on one or the other ground.
They hardly ever reach a prompt
conclusion..........If a criminal case is
unduly delayed that may itself be a good
ground
for
going
ahead
with
the
disciplinary enquiry even where the
disciplinary proceedings are held over at
an
earlier
stage.
The
interests
of
administration and good government
demand
that
these
proceedings
are
concluded expeditiously. It must be
remembered
that
interests
of
administration demand that undesirable
elements are thrown out and any charge
of
misdemeanour
is
enquired
into
promptly. The disciplinary proceedings
are meant not really to punish the
guilty but to keep the administrative
machinery unsullied by getting rid of
bad elements. The interest of delinquent
officer also lies in a prompt conclusion of
the disciplinary proceedings. If he is not
1 All] Ashok Kumar Srivastava V. U.P. Public Services Tribunal, U.P. and others
89
guilty of the charges, his honour should
be vindicated at the earliest possible
moment and if he is guilty, he should be
dealt with promptly according to law. It is
not also in the interest of administration
that
persons
accused
of
serious
misdemeanour should be continued in
office indefinitely, i.e., for long periods
awaiting
the
result
of
criminal
proceedings. It is not in the interest of
administration. It only serves the interest
of the guilty and dishonest........"

17. In Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs.
Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., AIR 1999 SC
1416, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that there can be no bar for continuing
both the proceedings simultaneously. The
Court placed reliance upon large number
of its earlier judgments, including Delhi
Cloth and General Mills Ltd. Vs. Kushal
Bhan, AIR 1960 SC 806; Tata Oil Mills
Co. Ltd. Vs. The Workmen, AIR 1965 SC
155; Jang Bahadur Singh Vs. Baij Nath
Tiwari, AIR 1969 SC 30; Kusheshwar
Dubey Vs. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.
& Ors., AIR 1988 SC 2118; Nelson Motis
(Supra); and B.K. Meena (Supra), and
held that proceedings in a criminal case
and departmental proceedings can go on
simultaneously except where both the
proceedings are based on the same set of
facts and the evidence in both the
proceedings is common. In departmental
proceedings, factors prevailing 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
criminal case, the charge has to be proved
by the prosecution beyond reasonable
doubt. Where the charge against the
delinquent employee is of a grave nature
which involves complicated questions of
law and fact, it is desirable to stay the
departmental proceedings till conclusion
of the criminal case. Where the nature of
charge in a criminal case is grave and
wherein complicated questions of fact and
law are involved, will depend upon the
nature of the defence, the nature of the
case launched against the employee on the
basis of evidence and material collected
against him during investigation or as
reflected in the charge-sheet. In case the
criminal
case
does
not
proceed
expeditiously,
the
departmental
proceedings cannot be kept in abeyance
for ever and may be resumed and
proceeded with so as to conclude the
same at the early date. The purpose is that
if the employee is found not guilty his
cause may be vindictive, and in case he is
found guilty, administration may get rid
of him at the earliest.

18. In State Bank of India & Ors.
Vs. R.B. Sharma, AIR 2004 SC 4144,
same view has been reiterated observing
that both proceedings can be held
simultaneously,
except
where
departmental proceedings in criminal case
are based on same set of facts and
evidence in both the proceedings is
common. The Court observed as under:-

"The
purpose
of
departmental
inquiry and of prosecution are to put a
distinct aspect. Criminal prosecution is
launched for an offence for violation of
duty. The offender owes to the society, or
for breach of which law has provided that
the offender shall make satisfaction to the
public. So crime is an act of commission
in violation of law or of omission of a
90 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
public duty. The departmental inquiry is
to maintain discipline in the service and
efficiency of public service."

19. While deciding the said case a
very heavy reliance has been placed upon
the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court
in Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State
Road Transport Corporation Vs. Mohd
Yousuf Miya & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 2232,
wherein it has been held that both
proceedings can be held simultaneously
unless the gravity of the charges demand
staying the disciplinary proceedings till
the trial is concluded as the complicated
questions of fact and law are involved in
that case.

20. A similar view has been
reiterated by the Apex Court in Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors. Vs. T.
Srinivas, AIR 2004 SC 4127. A ThreeJudge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Krishnakali Tea Estate Vs. Akhil
Bhartiya Chah Mazdoor Sangh & Anr.,
(2004) 8 SCC 200 reconsidered all earlier
judgments and reiterated the same view,
as the approach and the objective of the
criminal proceedings, and the disciplinary
proceedings are distinct and different.
There can be no bar in carrying on the
criminal trial and criminal proceedings
simultaneously.

21. Thus, there can be no doubt
regarding the settled legal proposition that
as the standard of proof in both the
proceedings is quite different, and the
termination
is
not based
on
mere
conviction of an employee in a criminal
case, the acquittal of the employee in
criminal case cannot be the basis of taking
away
the
effect
of
departmental
proceedings. Nor such an action of the
department can be termed as double
jeopardy. The submission made in this
regard is untenable in view of the law
discussed herein above.

22. In the instant case, the
disciplinary proceedings stood concluded
much earlier as the punishment orders had
been passed on 16.7.1997 and order of his
acquittal in criminal case dated 5.7.2000.
The Tribunal decided the claim petition
on 30.07.1999 and as the Tribunal also
did not have any occasion to assess the
impact of the judgment of the criminal
Court
which
came
much
later
on
05.07.2000. In this view of the matter, the
impugned order cannot be either faulted
or interfered with. The State has suffered
a huge financial loss which has been
embezzled by the petitioner, and the
charge stood proved against the petitioner
in disciplinary proceedings. In a limited
scope of judicial review, we do not see
any cogent reason to interfere with the
judgment and order dated 30.7.1999,
passed by the U.P. Public Services
Tribunal, Lucknow.

23. The petition is devoid of merits
and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

 Petition dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.01.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.U.KHAN, .J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41759 of 1992

Baldeo Krishna,

...Petitioner
Versus
Rent
Control
and
Eviction
Officer,
Saharanpur

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.B. D. Mishra